![]() | This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. | ![]() |
I wonder how close this GA-class article is to a MILHIST A-class? I do think I exhausted all the sources available to me when writing it. I found and translated a map for the article, but it got removed as it was not free enough and I could never get a mapmaker to make it into a free one (and I gave up... if you know/are a willing mapmaker, please help :). Currently the map is available as an external link: [1] -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment
The article being short shouldn't be grounds for an oppose; even in FAC, it's not about length, as opposed to how complete the article is. If there isn't a lot of information, obviously the article will be short. On the other hand, if this was the largest battle Polish forces were in, why are there not more sources?
JonCatalán
(Talk)
18:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comment
I cannot support it until these and the problems mentioned above are resolved, especially the need for a copy-edit. – Joe Nu tter 15:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
I think this article is just about ready for FA, but it's best if an A-class review takes place first.-- Gen. Bedford his Forest 23:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Well it has been vastly improved and I decided to re-nominate it. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 22:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Many people who believe in a government conspiracy during the 9/11 attacks claim the government kept the jets from going to New York.[14] Although this is true because of Cold War policies, they claimed that NORAD purposely kept the planes there while the towers were struck. Pilot Daniel Nash said that he couldn't recall being told that the North Tower was hit but he did remember seeing the smoke over 70 miles away.[14] They also believe that using NORAD's calculations, the planes were going at 24% speed.[14] The planes probably flew faster but they could not go supersonic as they would've eventually flown over land, which is against FAA regulations. These regulations ban sonic booms from occuring near land. The exception is that the military is allowed to conduct supersonic flight within certain corridors, which are located in the western United States.
—Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 00:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
I've rewritten this article, and it has since been rated as B-Class. I think it could make an A-Class, and would appreciate some input on how it can be improved. Thanks. -- Nudve ( talk) 07:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments—I'm not sure on the specifics of WP:LEAD, but I am a fan of either an entirely unsourced lead or an entirely referenced lead. That way there is no confusing on whether the rest of the lead should also be referenced (the referenced material should just be repeated in the main body of the text). It is a well referenced article on a touchy subject, given the widespread nationalism found on Wikipedia. There are some MoS issues, as outlined below:
Thanks for your comments!
Overall, however, it looks good. You will probably be asked to get someone to copyedit the article, although I'm not sure if this will be a requirement for the A-class. I would see if anybody is interested, regardless. JonCatalán (Talk) 22:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Support
JonCatalán
(Talk)
20:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments Some MoS comments:
Oppose - this article appears to have been subject to several disputes recently, including a copyright violation, and now contains a neutrality tag; it thus fails criteria A2. Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 03:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose - I'd have to oppose because of the neutrality tag alone, that would not even let it pass a GA review, especially with the disputes surrounding the article. I'd recommend working on getting it to GA first then bring it back here for A class review if the article stabilizes. -- Banime ( talk) 19:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm nominating this for User:Editorofthewiki. This article recently failed a FAC, although I think it should have passed. This is to prepare it for another FAC (I'm assuming it will go through a FAC again). JonCatalán (Talk) 22:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Just passed a GA. I'd like to go for A and maybe FA soon. ṜedMarkViolinist Drop me a line 19:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments - Just a few points I noticed:
Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 00:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment
One of my favorite characters in the ACW, I think he would make a fascinating FA, especially for my first FA. I know I'll need to improve the map on the article (either once again get the book to take a better pic, or absolutely redo it) but other than that, is it A-class, and if not, what does it need?-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 20:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
Comments
{{
convert}}
.This was recently a FAC but it did not pass so I am going to try for A-Class now.- Red4tribe ( talk) 02:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Not promoted -- ROGER DAVIES talk 13:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Hits all the criteria, though I suppose someone should check another published source to see if anything was left out. — db48x | Talk 19:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is a quality GA, and it has been suggested several times for an A-class review. - Ed! (talk) (Hall of Fame) 02:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I've gone back and added/changed sources to include many non-us military sources. How does it look now? - Ed! (talk) (Hall of Fame) 16:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Well I improved the article and i've done what was told of me to do. I think this is of A-Class quality and i'll look forward to what others think about the article. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 01:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Note People, please don't be afraid to voice your opinions. This doesn't need to stall out again. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 22:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment - Several paragraphs lack sources. For example, under Berlin Crisis the second and fourth paragraphs aren't sourced. Under Conspiracy Link the following sentence probably needs a source - The exception is that the military is allowed to conduct supersonic flight within certain corridors, which are located in the western United States. Further down there are even more unreferenced statements, and I believe these need to be referenced - you can never have too many. JonCatalán ( talk) 18:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment First, thank you for commenting everyone! The citation issues always appear and some of them I know that they are factual but i'm unsure of where they might be backed up. I'll try to improve it though. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 00:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Closed: No consensus for promtion. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 06:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I think this article is close to A class status. Thus please check it and help us to improve it.-- Seyyed( t- c) 02:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
–
between the two page numbers).
That's all I have time for now. I'll take a look tomorrow (after I get some sleep). Cam ( Chat) 07:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply
–
between the two page numbers).Well this just passed the GA review. I was told before it even achieved this status that it should go to A-Class review after this because of the quality. I also think that it has potential because I think that it meets the criteria. So here it is, ready for review. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 01:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Since you've fixed the problems Nick pointed out, if you fix those and the intro, it'll be better, but in the meantime I am willing to support it only hesitantly. Borg Sphere ( talk) 13:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Now that you've fixed these I like it. Borg Sphere ( talk) 00:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Prior nomination is here. We went through the issues raised during the previous nomination. We could deal with most of them. The images have been checked for complaince with other material and the captions say clearly what they intent to show. However, there are no guidelines on how drawings of ancient warriors or formations should be checked. Instead of bickering here and not in many other articles, guidelines need to be established. The article is focused on the topic, so length shouldn't be a problem. Wandalstouring ( talk) 12:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I started working on this article in early 2007 and took it up through the GA Review process, where it passed. I've decided to continue working on it, and eliminated a paragraph in the history section which had less to do with the tank and more to do with the invasion of France in general. I will work through all the MOS requirements I've learned so far, but I'd like to get some feedback before I put it through FAC and at the same time try to get it to A-class. I think that if it can get to A-class, the FAC will not be such a rigorous process. JonCatalán ( talk) 18:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Question: Can I have this review closed? I am apparently going to Fort Irwin tomorrow, for a week (have to get full discharge papers), so I won't be around to finish the review. Sorry - I will reopen when I come back. JonCatalán ( talk) 21:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I feel this article is easily a future Featured Article, but should go through the A-class review that only WP MILHIST can provide. Let the examination begin.-- Bedford Pray 02:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment
All in all, it's an interesting article that could become A-Class, but it needs a good copyedit and expanding the stby-like paragraphs.
I believe this article fully meets the criteria and the difference is clear. Also see the comments here. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND talk 20:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
This is going through a peer review, but I think it would be faster if it goes through a peer review and an A-class review simultaneously. This morning, this article passed a Good Article Review. As with other articles, I'm ultimately shooting for FAC. Thanks for taking the time to look at it and express your opinions on it! JonCatalan ( talk) 15:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: It might be better to get the peer review (where the text is described as a "rough draft") more or less out of the way before requesting an ACR. This review is really geared to being the last port of call prior to FAC and the article content will be more stable after the PR is complete. There is, coincidentally, a discussion on this at the moment among the coordinators and comments there would be appreciated. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 20:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Assessing the article for WP:GREECE I saw a paradox. The article passed in 2006 an A-Class review, but then (in the same month!) failed GA review! I think that it should be reassessed by the project, in order to see whether this paradox (a WP:MILHIST projet A-Class article to have failed GA review) should remain or not.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 07:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC) reply
These are some things I saw. I will give it a more thorough look over later or tomorrow. JonCatalan ( talk) 14:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Hello again! My first visit for almost five months. This is probably pushing it a bit, but at 5.5k of prose (Tent pegging is 4.3k), it is all that exists on the subject. Captain Nguyen Van Nhung was the bodyguard of General Duong Van Minh, who deposed President Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam in a military coup. Nhung's notability is solely derived from his actions as Minh's bodyguard - this amounts to executing Diem, his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu and the Army of the Republic of Vietnam Special Forces head and deputy, Colonel Le Quang Tung and Major Le Quang Trieu. All four executions are described to the maximum available extent, as is the assassination of Nhung himself. So, this is an exhaustive account of Nhung's activities, the other parts of his life and military career are not known at all, from my search of 15+ books of the Diem downfall. I guess this is a test case to see if things like this are too short. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 08:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
A few comments (on request)
giggy ( :O) 10:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Fixed many of the issues in the previous nomination, and I'll try to fix more that come up. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line Review Me! 03:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose
-- ROGER DAVIES talk 07:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Article is GA, undergone further improvements. I hope you will give me a feedback that should be improved further. M.K. ( talk) 11:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose for now. very promising but this needs work to get to A-Class quality.
The article is GA, but failed its FAC. The request for copyedit has yielded no takers so I'd like another review via WP:MILHIST A-class. Cheers, Harlsbottom ( talk) 13:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I am renominating this article for A class review after it has been worked on and overhauled by myself, User:Saberwyn and other editors to fit the criteria. The previous review is archived here. Benea ( talk) 11:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I will fix any comments that you have. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line § 19:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Fixed all of the previous concerns. If you have any comments, I will fix them. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line § 19:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This article went through a WPMILHIST peer review some months ago, and I've implemented virtually all the suggestions made there. It's currently rated B. Looking for either an endorsement of A-class status or pointers on what I need to fix to get it upgraded. Many thanks. Buckshot06 ( talk) 10:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment I'm a bit confused by this article and am hoping that you can clarify it for me. What is its purpose? Is it a list of Soviet armies or is an explication of what "army" means in Soviet terms? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 17:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
CommentI also put these on the discussion page. Yes, I agree the purpose is a little unclear, although you do mention that a Soviet (and for that matter Japanese) were smaller than Western ones. In elaborating on that, a worthwhile aside is that Soviet ranks went from colonel to major general.
Might clarify that Guards designation neither changed the organization of the unit, nor was assigned temporarily.
Clarify, if that [what? Buckshot06 ( talk) 23:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)] is the case, the date of these designations. It's confusing to see a redesignation when an Army was reassigned to GSFG, considering that the later name is more likely to be known. reply
Reflist should be 2-column.
Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I usually go for GA status before the A status, GA reviewers offer some useful input. Lead is way to short and should be expanded.
There are too few inline cites (many paragraphs have no refs).
List of Soviet Armies in the Civil War should have individual armies ilinked, like the following List of Soviet Armies in World War II has (same hold true for other lists - ilink all armies, they were all notable, don't be afraid of red links). Lists of armies of the interwar and postwar series should be added.
PS. While this does not concern this article, {{ Armies of the Soviet Army}} should be added to all subarticles about individual armies.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Self-nominator: I believe this article exemplifies the great work of WP. Although it did not pass FAC, it did fairly well (see the archive). I believe that there are no gaping holes, only minor adjustments, to bring this article to FA status. Codharris ( talk) 00:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Closed as Not promoted -- ROGER DAVIES talk 06:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article has been up once before. I will have more time to listen to comments and suggestions, so feel free to post any. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line § 20:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line § 01:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Here are a few comments. I agree with the comments above, although I do not understand the one regarding images and text; the suggested link does not point to information about that subject.
Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line § 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This was suggested in the previous Assessment. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line § 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line § 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line § 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line § 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line § 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line § 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line § 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line § 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line § 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line § 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Good luck with your review. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 21:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I submit this article for A-class review. It has undergone a WP:Peer Review from WP:BIO and WP:MILHIST, and was recently promoted to GA-class by one of the most careful reviewers. I think that having other editors involved in the A-class portion of the review process will add critical feedback and make it even better. Mrprada911 ( talk) MrPrada ( talk) 16:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Following a peer review (thanks, user:Carom) I think this article is ready for A-class consideration. Please tell me whether it's ready for A-class status, and if not, what I need to do to fix it. Cheers Buckshot06 ( talk) 01:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments I gave it a fairly thorough copyedit and added a fair amount of interwiki links. Some remaining issues:
*Nominator's Note: Please can this be withdrawn from consideration for A-class; the issues raised will take a fair amount of time to work through. Buckshot06 ( talk) 00:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I've been working on this article for quite a while, and I think that it could become an A-class article. Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Redmarkviolinist Drop me a line 21:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Even if it's a quite short article, I think it could meet the requirements in my opinion. However, suggestions and comments would be welcome. -- Eurocopter ( talk) 16:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The cronica lui Johann de Thurocz depicts a cavalry battle. Please check this source whether there is a description of cavalry encounters(entrace and exit?).
Mention that under Charles's (died 1342) successor the military conflict with the Hungarian king would continue.
Check these sources for information and check the literature your sources used:
If you have done all demanded in this to do list (except the armament) then I have no more objections against promoting it to A class. Wandalstouring ( talk) 09:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I have done a lot of fixing and expanding of the article in question, and I believe that it meets the criteria fully now. See these two previous versions: One and Two. The current version is this one. ~ Dreamy § 02:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I worked quite a lot at this article and think it is ready now for promotion. However, there might be few minor issues to be fixed (copyediting, etc), but i'm ready to take care of them. -- Eurocopter tigre ( talk) 14:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The article is extensive, has a large number of images and references, and is well sourced. It also has many blue links and very few red ones. - Ed! ( talk) 16:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply