![]() | This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. | ![]() |
An article completely rewritten in the past month, which should meet all requirements for A-class in my opinion. -- Eurocopter tigre ( talk) 13:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply
You'll find my answers after each point. Cheers, -- Eurocopter tigre ( talk) 19:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I have a couple of editorial items I'd like to bring up (I should preface, great job, overall just needs a tiny bit more work on English copy/style editing.)
Just some thoughts. Traveling the rest of the year so apologies I can't contribute more substantially. — PētersV ( talk) 20:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply
For example:I am particulary interested in death toll estimate, and if there is any other estimate then Beevor's and if the word "killed" is proper one, or if the deaths were also made by famine, bad weather etc. -- Molobo ( talk) 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I also don't think that wiki is interested in your particular opinions., it it wouldn't there wouldn't be an Assesment.Basically the whole article is about claims made in Beevor's book, perhaps it should be moved to an article about, while this article would be expanded with more sources ?-- Molobo ( talk) 00:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Please have look more carefully at the article and see that we have cited another 10 historians/authors besides Beevor. While Beevor has certainly written the best book regarding this issue, I see no problem citing him all over the article. -- Eurocopter tigre ( talk) 01:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply
There are doubts Königsberg was German? Because it originally wasn't ? The place only became German due to ethnic cleansing and genocide of native population by Teutonic Knights and settlement of German colonists. The current version completely avoids mentioning the rather curious fact, that Germans removed from East Prussia weren't native people of the region and their existance there was result of ethnic cleansing and genocide.-- Molobo ( talk) 18:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply
and its Germanic heritage wiped clean The correct sentence should be either 'heritage of German conquest of the region' or 'heritage of Germanisation of the region'. After all the Germans invaded, ethnicly cleansed and germanised the area later.
I don't believe there's any controversy that the German population of Königsberg was brutally treated and purged Brutally is POV-compared to what Germany was doing, the Geramn population was treated very humanly, neither was it target of mass extermination like Jews or Poles were for example by using gas chambers, nor was German population declared sub-human. Considering the circumstances it would be proper to name the treatment as "light under circumstances of Second World War and German attempts to exterminate whole nations, rather then face extermination and classification as subhumans like Jews or Poles faced from German hands, Germans themselfs were just moved or allowed to move to their new borders".-- Molobo ( talk) 18:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Really ? Where can I find books claiming Germans originated in East Prussia and didn't arrive there due to earlier ethnic cleansing and conquest of the region ?
Suffered terribly ? Which books claim East Prussians were classified as subhuman as Germans classified other nations ? "As this article is focused on the experiance of German civilians in East Prussia there's no need for it to include detailed comparisons with the experiances of other groups of civilians during the war." The experience of German civilians is linked directly to German activity and goals in Second World War. And why the experience of Poles that lived in East Prussia during the war should be ignored ?
"In The Volksdeutsche of Eastern Europe and the Collapse of the Nazi Empire, 1944-1945, Doris Bergen analyzes the immediate and long-term effects of population policy on the ethnic Germans of eastern Europe which, in her view, was disastrous. Bergen notes that the ethnic Germans of this area found their fate intimately linked to, and affected by, the German war effort and the regime's genocidal policy in more than material ways. Not only did Nazi resettlement policy cause a permanent shift of population transfers and ethnic boundaries, it also caused the erasure of ethnic coexistence. During the earlier years of the war, the Nazis emphasized racial hostility and competition, but at war's end, when it was fairly clear that the Germans would lose, ethnic Germans who had benefited from the earlier policy simply refused to abandon these ideas and found themselves, as a result, struggling to find a satisfactory place within their new communities.[17]" So it is clear the article has to be expanded on reasons of the conditions on the population and explain it under the context of WW2. - Molobo ( talk) 02:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Yep, all can be done after the holidays :). However, some of the points mentioned by Paul Pieniezny were fixed. Other comments are quite controversial, and if you think Beevor would be incorrect, you'll better come out with better sources. -- Eurocopter tigre ( talk) 09:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Tomstar, as all the points mentioned by you were fixed, would you support the promotion of this article now? -- Eurocopter tigre ( talk) 20:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is about two South Vietnamese Air Force officers who decided to rebel and drop bombs on the Presidential Palace. It is a rather small event, since only two of them were involved and and there was not a lot of planning - instead of carrying out an air raid against the Vietcong they decided instead to bomb the Palace. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 08:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The most notable attack of the Viet Nam Quoc Dan Dang (A class) - in 1930. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 09:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply
*Comment you should provide some refs for the numbers in the infobox. Still, this article needs more images/supporting materials, especially in the lasr 3-4 sections. --
Eurocopter tigre (
talk)
10:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
A mandarin from Vietnam who gained fame by disregarding the Treaty of Saigon which ceded territory to France and battled on against the wishes of Emperor Tu Duc. His miltary activites are discussed, along with the ramifications of his disobedience. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 09:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Respectfully submit this article for A-class review. It has undergone a peer review which has been archived [1]. Cla68 ( talk) 06:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is about the Vietnamese Nationalist Party, a revolutionary militant organisation that fought against the French colonisation of Vietnam from 1927 until 1954. It's most notable attack was the Yen Bai mutiny. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC) reply
A very nice article on the one of Stephen III of Moldavia most famous battles. Currently a GA, but it should easily become an A-class. -- Eurocopter tigre ( talk) 19:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The commander of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam Special Forces under Ngo Dinh Diem. It is quite short, but this is all that I have been able to find from all of User:Blnguyen/Viet library (but it was pointed out to me that Tent pegging is an A-class). Unfortunately there is one image of him on the internet, but its source cannot be confirmed, so I have only added pictures of his contemporaries. Thanks, Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 05:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This is a very new article, only a few weeks old, but is fully referenced, comprehensive, has PD images and I don't think there are any outstanding MOS issues. Hope to take it to FA eventually, so help on a copy-edit if anyone wants to volunteer would be appreciated, if the prose isn't quite there. Carre 08:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC) reply
After recently expanding this article from a Stub to B-class along the lines of the other canceled Iowa class battleship, USS Kentucky (BB-66), and consulting with the Iowa class guru, I've decided to put this article up for an A-class review in preparation for Featured Article Candidacy and also bringing the Iowas to Featured Topic status.- MBK004 06:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC) reply
An article on the 19th century Vietnamese guerrilla leader who battled the colonisation of French Indochina. Has pics, infoboxes refs and so forth. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply
I've just been developing this article as part of my series on battleships ( battleship and ironclad warship already FAs, dreadnought next on the list). I think it is now pretty comprehensive and comprehensively sourced - am very happy with the way it's turned out. A peer review was brief but helpful. The Land 18:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
In my ongoing quest to improve the Iowa class battleship articles here I have recently expanded the article USS Kentucky (BB-66), and although there is little chance it will clear FAC I would like to see the article improved to A-class. To that end, I have decided to make use of our A-class review as well as the WP:SHIPS review to get additional input as to how the article may be improved upon. Note that I am in school at the moment, so if I appear slow to respond here have patients [patience]; its likely school work has me tied up. TomStar81 ( Talk) 10:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Regards, The Land 17:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Self-nom for an article that's been around for a bit and garnered some favourable comment from colleagues. It describes a little-known but fascinating episode in Australia's military aviation history. Believe it meets the B-Class criteria pretty easily and could well be worth a nod for the next level. Cheers, Ian Rose 14:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply
Self-nom: this article is currently rated B-Class and has undergone a peer review which produced some useful observations and modifications. Believe it's ready for A-Class and would be aiming for FA if it passes the next hurdle, so any comments that could help to achieve that end are very welcome. Cheers, Ian Rose 03:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
Very good text flow, good lead, good use of images, well referenced
-- Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
This article recently passed GAC and I think that it could be of A-class quality. All comments welcome. Kyriakos 22:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC) reply
OK, thanks for the feedback. I have removed the image futher up and to the left and I have also remove the first attack. Kyriakos 06:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
-- Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply
I have clarified all the issues in the content and style section. Current I can not find any other good sources but I am searching and hope to have a few more soon. Also with the style of the citation I like the way it currently is. Tell me if you have any problems. Thanks. Kyriakos 08:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply
A complete re-write and expansion of the original article. Quite long in length, but necessary for explication of the topic (at least for the time being). This one is a touchy subject, and am interested in assuring that POV is not sticking out like a sore thumb somewhere. RM Gillespie 15:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Comments: reply
JKBrooks85 22:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment Support:
Very impressive piece of work indeed. -- FactotEm 07:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC) reply
Superb article, it easily meets all requirements! -- Eurocopter tigre 14:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC) reply
I just found it and it looks very well in my opinion, and it's proper referenced and organized. I really think this article deserves to be more than B-class! -- Eurocopter tigre 14:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply
Another in the series of articles about the American Civil War forts protecting Washington, D.C. This article's a little smaller, mainly because the fort itself was smaller and didn't have the importance of some of the previous ones I've put up for review. I've tried to address concerns previous reviews of other articles have brought up: Cites for every paragraph, removing unsupported information, and of course more photographs and illustrations. Let me know what you like and dislike and I'll be sure to fix it here and in future articles on the subject as well. Thanks for your time. JKBrooks85 14:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC) reply
This article covers the arrest and assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem, teh first president of the Republic of Vietnam at the end of a coup. Hopefully, I will manage to get this to FA but Nov 2, the date when he was killed. Let the suggestions begin! Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 09:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC) reply
This GA class article is, I hope, quite comprehensive and well written - hopefully A-class. In any case, comments by MILHIST would be much appreciated. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 01:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
This article has under gone a WPMILHIST peer review and a copy edit over the last few days and I have addressed most of the issues and I would like to hear what needs to improved and see whether or not the article is of A-class standard. Kyriakos 23:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Self-nom for yet another in the series of articles about the Civil War defenses of Washington, D.C. I've tried to incorporate suggestions from previous articles' reviews into this one: TomStar81's suggestions about cites and quotes, Eurocopter tigre's suggestions about images, and everything else. The article was featured in a Did you Know? on September 20, and I feel it's ready for an A-list review now. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks for your comments and your support. JKBrooks85 15:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply
This article has gone from stub rating to B-class, and following a very constructive peer review, I think it's now ready for at least A-class. I've currently got the article nominated at GA, and also in WP:LoCE to sort out any remaining prose/grammar/punctuation problems. I want to take this to FA, so as well as the A-class review, I'm interested in hearing opinions on chances at reaching FA, and suggestions on improvements to enable me to take it that far. Thanks. Carre 16:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply
There has been an impressive response to the article's peer review. The most compelling issues (whether raised or not) have hopefully been addressed; however, I of course welcome suggestions and encourage the identification of perceived deficiencies. Note: My editing has been severely curtailed recently, thus I pre-emptively apologise if I'm unresponsive this weekend. As is evident with this blurb, the article may still contain....flawed prose, but I'm essentially oblivious so bold editors are urged to refine the article! ;-) SoLando ( Talk) 14:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Self-nom for the latest article in the Civil War Defenses of Washington, D.C. series. It was rated start-class while still under construction, and since my ultimate goal is to give every fort an A-Class article, I'd appreciate your comments and support on this article. Please let me know of any problems or areas that you'd like to see improved, and I'll get on it right away. Thanks. JKBrooks85 01:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Article about the sealift/airlift of Vietnamese from the communist north to the anticommunist south in 1954-55 after the partition at Geneva. Erm, it's relatively long and detailed, about 30k, and is referenced, and I hope, at an acceptable standard of English. Thanks, Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 07:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC) reply
This article was peer reviewed in June [2] . I have accommodated the resulting comments as best I can and would now like to see if it is up to standard for A-Class. Thanks. -- FactotEm 16:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Self nom for an article created at the indirect suggestion of FayssalF, who said I should at least create stubs for all the wikilinks in the A-Class review of Fort Bayard (Washington, D.C.). That inspired me to create this article, which I originally intended to only be a stub. After getting a little carried away, it became the first biographical article that I've ever attempted, and I'd like to think that it's as worth of A-listing as any of the fort articles that are the main focus of my current campaign. Thanks for taking a look at it. JKBrooks85 21:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC) reply
07/01/56 | Captain | Full |
07/21/61 | Major | Brevet (for First Bull Run) |
05/04/62 | Lt. Col. | Brevet (for Siege of Yorktown) |
03/03/63 | Major | Full |
03/13/65 | Colonel | Brevet |
03/13/65 | Brig. Gen. | Brevet |
03/07/67 | Lt. Col. | Full |
Self-nom for this B-class article that's recently undergone peer review, during which I believe I addressed all points raised. Like to think it has the potential to go to FA but let's see what comes out of the next stage. Cheers, Ian Rose 13:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply
This article covers Fort Bayard, a fort constructed during the American Civil War as part of the defenses of Washington, D.C. I'm currently undertaking a project to create a page for every one of the 60+ forts that protected Washington during the war, and I'm sure this article is worthy of A-Class status. A similar article was raised to A-Class level last month, and Fort Bayard is easily the equal of that article ( Fort Stanton (Washington, D.C.)). If there are any problems with the article or the format, please let me know and I will fix them and avoid repeating them in future articles. Thank you for your time. JKBrooks85 22:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Respectfully request an A-class review of this article. I appreciate anyone's comments, questions, or suggestions. I'll be sitting on airplanes (i.e. traveling) for the next day or so which may delay my response to your comments but I look forward to receiving your input on if you feel that the article currently meets the A-class criteria or not. Cla68 12:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply
In my opinion quite a good article from our Early Muslim Military history task force. Wandalstouring 13:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Longer companion article to A-class Jacques Le Gris. This has been project reviewed and was considered A-class by at least one reviewer. Would like to get both to A-class, so am attempting it. Any comments on improvement will be gratefully appreciated.-- Jackyd101 12:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Previous nomination here.
As this article has been relatively stable for quite some time now, I'd like to bring it forward for another review towards A-Class and, eventually Featured status. The previous review brought forward some concerns regarding balance, quality of sourcing and wording; I found a number of good new resources to flesh things out, replaced some of the questioned sources, reworded, and added some more information where I could. I think the results have turned out fairly well, and would like to hear the views of project members once again. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
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 - Gog the Mild ( talk) via MilHistBot ( talk) 22:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list reply
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
Enfield revolver ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
Sadly, based on this discussion, I'm not sure that this article, which was delisted as a GA in 2014, is up to current ACR standards. There's a decent amount of uncited text in the first section of the body, and I have comprehensiveness concerns as well. The infobox mentions conflicts it was used in, and the lead mentions that it was used throughout the British Empire, but the only usage really discussed in the body is civil use by the Canadian Mounted Police. Hopefully this can be brought back up to snuff, but it'll need some work. Hog Farm Talk 04:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Self-nomination of an article recently passed for GA which the reviewer consideed to be close to FA standard, needing only a copy-edit. Am submitting it for A-class review, potentially with FA eventually in mind, so any comments would be appreciated.-- Jackyd101 01:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This is an article I've been working on for a little bit. I think it's fairly complete, and would like to try for an A-list ranking. It's fairly typical of the articles I'm creating for the Civil War forts of Washington, D.C., and would appreciate any constructive criticism that you all could offer. Thanks. JKBrooks85 14:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Military of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
At last, the final campaign of the Vietnam War. Hope it meets the criteria. If not, looking for some constructive criticism. RM Gillespie 14:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
After some heavy slogging on the part of several editors, a peer review, and a Good Article pass, I feel it is time to see if this article makes the grade for A-class. If not, what needs to be addressed? If so, what does it need for a run at Featured status? -- saberwyn 12:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Self-nomination, taking this to the next stage after getting some encouraging feedback from peer review. Might even think about going for FA-class if it all pans out well. -- Hongooi 18:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Respectfully submit this article for A-class review about a ship collision between an United States Navy submarine and a Japanese high school fishing training ship that happened a few years ago. Cla68 02:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This starter has moved up to B-Class and undergone a peer review. Am now seeking A status and/or constructive criticism. RM Gillespie 15:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The main article for the cannon article series, presently of GA status. It was initially deemed not thoroughly cited enough in its prior nomination here, and although the problems were fixed, the review expired. It should be sufficiently improved now. -- Grimhelm 19:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I have been working on this article on and off for several months. It is one of 5 sister articles that I aim to take to FA eventually. Campaign history of the Roman military was taken successfully to FA, and this is the second one I am concentrating on. Another editor recently nominated the article for GA status recently, which is passed. I would like to gain A-class status for this article on its way to FA. I have got the point where to me the article looks complete but I need feedback from other editors in order to take it forward. I am self-nominating it for A class, but any comments for improvement are welcome. PocklingtonDan ( talk) 19:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Very good article with proper images and references. I worked a lot on it in the past few time, and I would like to know if it deserves to become an A-class article. Regards, -- Eurocopter tigre 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes, I already talked with some people to help me do it. So, are you supporting it? -- Eurocopter tigre 19:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Wait, most probable some of this images were taken by Soviet Air Force or other Soviet/Russian officials, so this images would fall under something similar with the {{ PD-USGov-Military}}, but i'm not sure if such an image tag exist. No offense, in the 1970s Soviet Union, there were very few people and officials which had access to military prototypes, etc. However, I'm still supporting the fact that this images could fall under fair use on wikipedia also (opinion supported by Fnlayson also), although I think it will be imposible to contact the site, as it was last updated in 2003. -- Eurocopter tigre 17:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
As nobody else has anything to comment regarding the images, I think they should remain under fair-use, and the aeronautics.ru claims should work on wikipedia as well. -- Eurocopter tigre 10:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
All the posible unfree images were removed and will be replaced very soon. -- Eurocopter tigre 15:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Self nomination. The article was peer reviewed recently and the reviewers suggested that it might be good enough for A-class. Bukvoed 06:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Hi, I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to nominate an article of my own so bear with me if I broke some rule; I wish to nominate this article because destroyers are usually passed over by most histories of the Second World War in favour of more glamourous capital ships, so I thought these workhorses deserved a little more recognition for their contribution...I chose the Ledbury because it was active in many theatres during the war, even if its main action occurred in the Mediterranean. I hope I've satisfied the requirements of this encyclopaedia, but as I've said I'm still new here. Reuv 15:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Well done! (Self-nominations are quite allowed, by the way. Often they are both an important way of keen editors getting feedback for 'their' articles and of making sure that quality work is recognised) The Land 20:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Hi, this article is currently undergoing peer review in which no major problems were found, any that did arise have been fixed. As this is a "top" priority article i though it could do woth an A-Class review. Thanks in advance Woodym555 08:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. Appears to meet the criteria. CLA 20:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Self-nominating this article for A-class review. It passed GA review ( [7]) but recently failed FAC review ( [8]). CLA 23:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply
This article about a relatively obscure bit of naval history is now approaching the FA criteria. I think the concerns raised about style and citation at the previous A-class review have been deal with and it is now worth an A. Regards, The Land 09:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply
I am respectfully nominating this article for A-class review, i have just put it through peer review and i believe it now meets the criteria for A-class. Thankyou Woodym555 16:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Respectfully nominate this article about a World War II Pacific War naval battle for A-class review. CLA 13:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Renomination. This article was recently added as a Good Article, and I believe that all the concerns raised in the previous A-Class review and the peer review have been resolved by myself or Roger Davies. All comments and concerns welcomed. Carom 18:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 yards, use 000 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000 yards.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Medains 11:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Recently promoted to WP:GA. The MILHIST Peer review didn't attract much attention... Have been working (along with others, notably User:Deadkid_dk) to improve this article, and could use some extra eyes. Hope to get it to FA quality within the next 6 or 8 weeks. Ling.Nut 16:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 160 kilometres, use 160 kilometres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 160 kilometres.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Medains 21:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply
(undent) Yes... I really do appreciate for your help, and I also want to separate the remarks that are yours from those that are auto-generated... please forgive me if I didn't make it clear that the javascript made that error, not you. :-) I'm just trying to do my part to dispel a common misconception. I really do appreciate your comments. I hope my reply didn't catch you off guard... thanks!!! Ling.Nut 12:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
This article was peer reviewed in March and I now believe that it may have now reached A-class standard. As part of the A-class review I'd really appreciate any suggestions on how to further improve the article to FA status. -- Nick Dowling 00:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
World War One Victoria Cross recipient with a long an varied maritime career. Been working at this for a couple of days and have turned it from this into its current shape. Planning to go to FA with this eventually, and any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks-- Jackyd101 23:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Have brought this one up from a stub and am looking for constructive criticism. RM Gillespie 15:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Following several weaks of heavy work and reccomendation by another editor, I am submitting AHS Centaur for A Class Review. I wish to see if the article quality is good enough for A status, or if not, what needs to be worked on to drag it the rest of the way. -- saberwyn 06:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC) reply
I have inserted 3 {{ fact}} tags for 3 main events mentioned in the lead. Starting w/ a well referenced lead gives more credibility to the rest.
I personally don't like red links. So i suggest creating articles even if they would be stubs. If you need any help on that please drop me a line. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Otherwise, an excellent article and almost there. Cla68 01:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Respectfully submit this article about a military aircraft accident for A class assessment review. Thank you in advance for your review and comments. Cla68 08:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
An important (if somewhat obscure) Soviet parasite aircraft project, used operationally in WW2 with far better success than Mistel. The information is a bit scarce but I've pulled all the sources I could find, including the memoirs of the mothership test pilot. - Emt147 Burninate! 07:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
For procedural reasons, other project members submitted this article for A-class review twice before: here and here. People left some very nice comments, but because the article was written back in the days before all the cool kids were into footnotes, it was not rated "A class" the second time around. (Don't ask about the first.) The article now has all the citations we've grown to love, so let's see if it rates an "A". Thank you! — Kevin Myers 18:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This article recently passed GA and I'm hoping to have it evaluated for A-class and to get suggestions for what other improvements need to be made to the article before it can eventually be FA-worthy. JRP 04:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose
I couldn't read through more than the first section, but somebody needs to go through it and ensure that it flows... if I am noticing mistakes such as "British government relinquished their claims" then there is something wrong. Grammar ain't my strong suit. Balloonman 03:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
A fairly comprehensive overview of this important Soviet bomber. To preempt the comment on using too few sources, the Shavrov book is the definitive publication on early Soviet aircraft and most other sources use it as the starting point. - Emt147 Burninate! 01:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I drafted this page with some very helpful input from other editors and it has received a B class review. I would appreciate undergoing the A-class assessment to see if I can improve it further. (If going for 'good article' would be more appropriate than 'A-class' please let me know and I will go this route.) Kim dent brown 13:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Slowly building up the article, and battling against the low number of sources from which non-POV facts can be gleamed. Looking for constructive criticism, but please check back here after making points so you can answer any points I make in return! Thanks SGGH 14:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Have taken this one up from a starter. Looking for constructive ctiticism. RM Gillespie 14:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This has been an ongoing project of mine for over a year. I think she is ready for an A-class review at this point. Thanks-- Looper5920 03:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Am once again proposing this article for an A-Class review. RM Gillespie 15:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
No longer meets A-Class criteria at this time Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Current A-class assessment:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/American Civil War/Archive2.
This article was awarded A-class by a WP:MILHIST review on 28 March 2007 (see above). It went through a few GARs and was kept, but was later delisted as a GA on 28 July 2012 (see Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/American_Civil_War/2). Despite this it looks like it kept its A class rating by default. The article would seem to fail our A class criteria on referencing alone as there are quite a few paragraphs without citations. As such I request this be reassessed / demoted. Anotherclown ( talk) 02:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Demote as it stands on, as AC indicates, referencing alone. Formatting-wise, there's also lots of Harv errors to be tidied up. I'd love to see someone rescue the article before next year's sesquicentennial of the end of the war but it doesn't do WP any good to claim it as a MilHist A-Class article in its current state. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 09:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Demote on A1, there are sections with no citations at all. Which is a shame given the importance of the topic. Agree that the number of Harv errors is very ugly, and the See also section is not MOS-compliant. I haven't checked the images, but doesn't even look B-Class in its current state. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 12:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Demote: per nom and others, this doesn't meet the A-class criteria at the moment. AustralianRupert ( talk) 11:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Demote: I did some copyediting, but it really didn't make a dent. - Dank ( push to talk) 13:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply
The article has been growing quite nicely recently; the only thing suggested in the recent peer review that we cannot get is a map. I think the article fullfills the criteria for an A-class article. Comments appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Respectfully submit this article for A-class consideration. Cla68 00:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
*Oppose I think it is a great article, but it needs better sourcing. With more refrences, it could be an A-Class, but for now, no. --
Pupster21
19:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
Previous nominations here and here.
Listing nomination for RM Gillespie. Kirill Lokshin 17:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comparison with the term imperialist is meaningless. Communism/socialism is a distinct political/economic system that has an historical basis. Imperialism may have a loosely amalgamated set of beliefs shared by it practitioners, but it was never a coherent political system. Did the U.S./Australia/ROK/New Zealand etc, have imperialist designs in South Vietnam? Only in the dreams of the most hardened Marxist. Perhaps a better analogy would be the term "democratic forces", which would encompass the myriad political beliefs of its members (ranging from anarchists to fascists). Once again I stress the qualifications espoused by the project for an A-Class article. Is it well written, factually correct, and well cited. I do not believe that the terms "encyclopedic" or "style" appear in those qualifications. RM Gillespie 16:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this because I feel that it meets all set and established criteria for A-class, and because I feel that with a little effort it could easily become featured, as Kirill pointed out on the Iowa-class battleship peer review :) TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This article has recently become a Good Article after a two-month improvement drive. During this time, a lot of historical material was moved to ship of the line and ironclad warship - and far more material was added! The result is IMV a remarkably comprehensive treatment of the development and use of one of the most important weapons of all time. However, I might be a bit biased ;) - you can see the development of the article on the talk page and in particular the thorough review from the user who gave it GA status. Your feedback for A-class status is eagerly anticipated. The Land 19:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC) reply
For your perusal. RM Gillespie 03:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Self-nom. Recently passed GA, had a productive peer review which appears to have quieted down. This is my first real attempt at a detailed officer biography. JRP 03:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Article still meets A-Class criteria - Hawkeye7 ( talk) via MilHistBot ( talk) 20:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Operation Rolling Thunder ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this article for an A-class reappraisal as unfortunately I don't believe it meets the criteria anymore, unfortunately (specifically on referencing). As such, I am requesting opinions as to whether it should be delisted. If interested members are able to alleviate my concerns by editing the article, I am more than happy to change my opinion. I don't mean to discourage the article's contributors, and I can certainly see that a lot of hard work has gone into it...just seems that our standards have evolved since its original ACR in 2007 (link here). Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
This is a statement that is cited on page 5 of a reference work. This statement is also cited on page 5.A cite tag to page 5
This is a statement that is cited on page 5 of a reference work.
This statement is also cited on page 5.A cite tag to page 5
“ | Editors should attempt to take a reasonable approach when requesting citations. Unless the accuracy of a statement is in significant doubt, it is generally better to start with a request for citations on the article's talk page, rather than by inserting citation needed tags—particularly large numbers of such tags—into the article. | ” |
Images
Note: All CNs addressed, major portions re-written, lots of new refs, rewrote "Legacy" and major portions of the intro material. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 18:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply
At A class, I'd normally expect the citation style to be consistent; at the moment, it doesn't appear to be (unless there's a pattern I'm missing, which isn't impossible). Hchc2009 ( talk) 17:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I want to re-nominate this article, now that it has been peer reviewed. The fist A-class review has been archived here. JonCatalan 02:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
First World War Victoria Cross recipient. Passed GA, been Peer Reviewed. Want to see what else can be done and how far I can take this.-- Jackyd101 23:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
- If this article is about a person, please add
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information. [?]
- I saw this at peer review. I thought that the "infobox military person" superseeded the "persondata" box. Is this wrong?
- As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day. [?]
- The only dates with a th are in the citations and as these are direct from the source I didn't think they should be changed.
- Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout. [?]
- Moved notes, changed "Further reading" to "References". Is this what is meant?
- Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. [?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.
I would add that the red links are slightly annoying, and the information for Unterseeboot C-41 was available in one of the references. The www.victoriacross.net seems to have become a holding advert page, so doesn't say much. The CWGD page goes to Charles Manning, the Crisp page seems to be here. The image is a bit iffy - when was it taken? and by who - Crown Copyright can be annoying to say the least. I saw it on the Find a Grave page too. Finally, references generally go after punctuation. Other than than, and a final prose copyedit, I think it should be ok. RHB Talk - Edits 00:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Support The article seems to meet the criteria for A-class, although further improvement would certainly be necessary for FA. Carom 03:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Support Indeed meets criteria for A-class. Would in usual case need more citations for FA-status; however what Jackyd101 says about the sources may make this difficult. Cheers Buckshot06 03:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Support - You've done an excellent job with a fairly obscure subject. With a combination of searches I've turned up the following, though some aren't that useful: [12], [13] - Is victoriacross.org.uk similar to victoriacross.net?, or has the site moved?, [14], and [15] - he is shown on both church memorials, and finally [16] . RHB Talk - Edits 18:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Objection reword the intro into a shorter version with less adjectives. The main article can contain such flowery material.Support
Wandalstouring
14:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
Article no longer meets A-Class criteria - Peacemaker67 ( talk) via MilHistBot ( talk) 10:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Operation Linebacker ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this article for an A-class reappraisal as I don't believe it meets the criteria anymore, unfortunately (specifically on referencing). Unfortunately it appears that the article's main contributor is no longer active, so as such, as per the Operation Rolling Thunder re-appraisal, I am listing this here in the hopes that editors will become involved and hopefully bring the article up to scratch. If this does not occur, then I believe it should be delisted. Unfortunately, I do not have any references that can be added, but I am happy to get involved and help in other regards. I have highlighted this issue on the talk page, and requested citations previously, but so far they have not been forthcoming. I am listing both this article, and its twin, Operation Linebacker II, now as it seems to make sense to work on these at the same time. AustralianRupert ( talk) 05:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Prior nomination here.
The article recently passed GA, and I'd like to see your take on it. Druworos 11:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Renominating for Ikokki. Kirill Lokshin 17:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Respectfully request an A-class assessment review of this article on a World War II battle. Cla68 01:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Article no longer meets A-Class criteria - Peacemaker67 ( talk) via MilHistBot ( talk) 10:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Operation Linebacker II ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this article for an A-class reappraisal as I don't believe it meets the criteria anymore, unfortunately (specifically on referencing). Unfortunately it appears that the article's main contributor is no longer active, so as such, as per the Operation Rolling Thunder re-appraisal, I am listing this here in the hopes that editors will become involved and hopefully bring the article up to scratch. If this does not occur, then I believe it should be delisted. Unfortunately, I do not have any references that can be added, but I am happy to get involved and help in other regards. I have highlighted this issue on the talk page, and requested citations previously, but so far they have not been forthcoming. I am listing both this article, and its twin, Operation Linebacker, now as it seems to make sense to work on these at the same time. AustralianRupert ( talk) 05:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Prior nomination here.
I believe that this is ready for an A-Class marking. I have changed it since my last comment at 13 December 2007. I have added a reference, and have completed it I believe. Dreamafter Talk 19:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I have nominated this article, because I believe that it is as good as it can get, and I know that all of you may scream "longer!", but I have looked for more information than is contained, and I could not find any. I also believe that this article is of great quality. < DREAMAFTER> < TALK> 02:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Another important battle of Moldavian Prince Stephen the Great. I would say it easily meets all criteria for A-class. -- Eurocopter tigre 17:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
A good article on the one of the largest US military transport plane. It would be nice for WPMILHIST to have some more A/FA class aircraft articles. -- Eurocopter tigre ( talk) 19:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is an A-class on WP:Biography. As Tătărescu was mostly a political figure, I think it's notable for the MilHist project because he served as a Minister of War in 1934. He also had a very important activity during WWII, especially fighting with the Iron Guard. -- Eurocopter tigre 12:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes, you are correct, but as a prime minister during the war, I think you are still very involved in it. Just think at Churchill, etc. Sincerelly, I don't really know what to say, so I'll let you decide if this article is notable for WPMILHIST or not. -- Eurocopter tigre 16:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
An excellent article made on a quite sensitive and controversial topic. There were some discussions in the past regarding its neutrality, but the problems are finnaly solved and this article can become an A-class in my opinion. -- Eurocopter tigre 18:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This article previously failed an A-class review (see here) owing to lack of broadness in subject and some need of copyediting. This should all have been dealt with now, at least that's what I would say! -- Chris B • talk 16:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Have made major modifications to this B-Class article. Hope it meets the criteria. RM Gillespie 15:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Cla68 20:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC) reply
I nominate this article for traing and hope to have gathered enough knowledgeable reviewers this time. Wandalstouring 10:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC) reply
It developed quite well from an unreadable rubbish. Although this was not my merit, I want to push it further to A class. Wandalstouring 11:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment
Apart from that, the wikilinks are relevant, the prose is good and the text is comprehensive. Well done so far. Woodym555 13:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose - In my opinion this article is quite much unreferenced. There are entire subsections such as "Warfare in the Renaissance and Early Modern Period" and "Reconnaissance and patrol" which are completely unreferenced. Also, in "Equestrian competition" subsection, three of the four main paragraphs are lacking citations. I think it won't meet even the GA requirements. -- Eurocopter tigre 12:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Currently a well-cited GA, aiming for Featured Article status in the near future, yet I feel it would benefit with an A-class review first. Cheers, Chris.B 15:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I believe it is well sourced, well-written, with no edit warring. It is an article describing one of the most decisive events in history and its content is broad enough, in my opinion, to begin upgrading its status. I believe that it has the potential, perhaps with a few more edits, of becoming an FA. Tourskin 19:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
After these defeats, Andronicus was in no position to send many troops. In 1320, Andronicus II's grandson, Andronicus III was disinherited following the death of Andronicus II's son.[22] In 1321, Andronicus III retaliated by marching on Constantinople; he was given Thrace as an appanage. However, Andronicus III continued to press for his inheritance and in 1322 was made co-emperor. This culminated into a small scale Balkan war in which Serbia backed Andronicus II and the Bulgarians backed his grandson, Andronicus III. Eventually Andronicus III emerged triumphant on May 23 1328. As Andronicus III consolidated his hold on Byzantium, the Ottomans succeeded in taking Brusa from the Byzantines in 1326.[23] thus beginning what would turn out to be a series of successful sieges The last sentence isn't a sentence, punctuation needs sorted. The dates need to be formatted using the guidelines at WP:DATE particularly under Autoformatting and linking. This paragraph seems like a list at the moment and it is just an example. I think it needs a thorough copyedit before it becomes an A-Class article. Woodym555 22:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I have started working on this article recently, but it needs a good look at, to get it up to scratch. Any input would be appreciated! -- Zak 20:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose I have written a lead for the article now. When i did so i added some example edits in. The summary of the problems is listed below.
I think it needs a thorough copyedit and refinement before becoming and A-Class Article. Woodym555 14:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Significant changes had been made since the last A-class review. Mission, Beginnings and Post-communist era sections had been added (these sections were missing at the time of the first review). I would like to see if there is anything else to be done for this article to become an A-class article. Best regards, -- Eurocopter tigre 09:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
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.
Article no longer meets A-Class criteria - Hawkeye7 ( talk) via MilHistBot ( talk) 18:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
Ironclad warship ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
Nominating this for A-class reassessment because of concerns still not addressed from Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ironclad warship/archive1. Way too much uncited text. Schierbecker ( talk) 20:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
MilHistBot went through and re-assessed this as c-class last week and I am in agreement with the venerable bot. Per Gog, one need go no further than the twenty-eight(!) citation needed tags. Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 14:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Besides the uncited text, a statement that I flagged as dubious during the 2022 FAR is still present. This needs major work. Hog Farm Talk 14:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Delist -- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Significant changes had been made since the last A-class review. Mission, Beginnings and Post-communist era sections had been added (these sections were missing at the time of the first review). I would like to see if there is anything else to be done for this article to become an A-class article. Best regards, -- Eurocopter tigre 09:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The main article for the cannon article series, presently of GA status. It was initially deemed not thoroughly cited enough in its prior nomination here, and although the problems were fixed, the review expired. It should be sufficiently improved now. -- Grimhelm 19:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Previous nomination here.
As this article has been relatively stable for quite some time now, I'd like to bring it forward for another review towards A-Class and, eventually Featured status. The previous review brought forward some concerns regarding balance, quality of sourcing and wording; I found a number of good new resources to flesh things out, replaced some of the questioned sources, reworded, and added some more information where I could. I think the results have turned out fairly well, and would like to hear the views of project members once again. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I nominate this article for traing and hope to have gathered enough knowledgeable reviewers this time. Wandalstouring 10:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC) reply
A recently written article, am curious as to what changes/improvements might be needed. Balloonman 15:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Renomination. This article was recently added as a Good Article, and I believe that all the concerns raised in the previous A-Class review and the peer review have been resolved by myself or Roger Davies. All comments and concerns welcomed. Carom 18:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 yards, use 000 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000 yards.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Medains 11:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
I make no comment on the content of the article. I came across it while assessing articles and it had A-class status from other WP projects so I wanted to put it through our process to see if it held up.-- Looper5920 10:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This article recently passed as a GA and I would like to see if it can become A-class. If you do oppose the article's nomination could you please write why. Thanks. Kyriakos 05:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I nominated this article for A-Class because of its great in-depth explanation and good refrencing. -- Pupster21 19:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC) reply
No longer meets A-Class criteria at this time Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Current A-class assessment:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/American Civil War/Archive2.
This article was awarded A-class by a WP:MILHIST review on 28 March 2007 (see above). It went through a few GARs and was kept, but was later delisted as a GA on 28 July 2012 (see Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/American_Civil_War/2). Despite this it looks like it kept its A class rating by default. The article would seem to fail our A class criteria on referencing alone as there are quite a few paragraphs without citations. As such I request this be reassessed / demoted. Anotherclown ( talk) 02:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Demote as it stands on, as AC indicates, referencing alone. Formatting-wise, there's also lots of Harv errors to be tidied up. I'd love to see someone rescue the article before next year's sesquicentennial of the end of the war but it doesn't do WP any good to claim it as a MilHist A-Class article in its current state. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 09:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Demote on A1, there are sections with no citations at all. Which is a shame given the importance of the topic. Agree that the number of Harv errors is very ugly, and the See also section is not MOS-compliant. I haven't checked the images, but doesn't even look B-Class in its current state. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 12:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Demote: per nom and others, this doesn't meet the A-class criteria at the moment. AustralianRupert ( talk) 11:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Demote: I did some copyediting, but it really didn't make a dent. - Dank ( push to talk) 13:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Former British Prime Minister. Long, thorough, well-written article. Has earned an A-class from WP:Biography, thought I should nom it to have the assessments match. LordAmeth 16:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I've placed this article through peer review, took action based on the comments & suggestions received, and am ready to nominate this for A-class. There aren't yet have any A, GA, or FA class articles which are primarily my work, as far as I'm aware off hand, and as this is a very broad and important (and likely fairly popular) topic, I should like it to be able to stand out as an example of some of my best work. Thank you. LordAmeth 09:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support:
-- Petercorless 22:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment I know you're not a big fan of citations, but there are some really, really bare patches in this one, particularly towards the end. It's quite good otherwise, but I don't think the citations are up to the level of recent A-class promotions. Carom 21:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Finally finished this article. Hope past criticisms have been addressed. RM Gillespie 21:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Kirill Lokshin 03:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC) replyThe lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article. Small details that appear in the full article should be avoided in favor of a very brief overview of the article.
I nominated this article for A-class because it has historical importance and good content.-- Pupster21 17:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I am a bit short on time and these are just initial impressions. I'll add more later. Cheers-- Looper5920 18:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Renomination by Wandalstouring. Kirill Lokshin 02:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
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.
For your perusal. RM Gillespie 16:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
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.
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.
Article was been extensively reviewed and sourced, is comprehensive, follows guidelines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content and this project. Hoping FAC is next. - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 19:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC) reply