This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because. It just passed at
WP:GAC and the reviewer thinks it need some attention with regard to flow.
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
21:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Quick Comment The article is very well written in my humble opinion, however, the only fault i can find is of the lack of photos, especially one of the subject himself. If you can find one, that would be great. I have a feeling that if you want to go for FAC that this may be a hindrance. ṜedMarkViolinist Drop me a line 19:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Anyway, that is it. Good luck with improving the article. Cheers. — AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Greetings, I am not the author of this article (TraceyR is), already essentially passed an A-class review at WP:Aviation
here.
Ryan4314 (
talk)
19:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Roma served during the Second World War. She participated in no missions during the war, but was hit twice during Allied bomber raids. Fifteen months after she was commissioned, she was blown up by two German
Fritz X bombs. —
Ed
(talk •
majestic titan)
04:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
Not promoted. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...
I just nominated it for the FA class article and there some body advised me to list this article first for the A class military history article, so here it is.
الله أكبر
Mohammad Adil
22:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Oppose – sorry, but there are just too many issues with the article at present, such as:
Please do not be discouraged by all of this, however, and continue to work on the article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 06:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC) reply
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 15:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply
@user:Joe_N, i have made request for the copy-edits lets see when they respond. الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 10:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 10:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because (a.) I think it fully covers the main actions of the WWI Battle of Delville Wood, (b.) It contains detailed maps defining how the battle progressed, (c.) It contains a full oob for both Allied and German forces, (d.) It has undergone peer review and all recommendations have been incorporated into the article and (e.) lastly, according to my own evaluation, it meets the factual and style pre-requisites for an A Class article.
Also, with Remembrance Day approaching on 11 November, Delville Wood is highly representative of the losses and suffering experienced by both sides - for which this day is remembered. Depending on the opinion of the reviewers / editors, it could be considered for FAC for that date. Farawayman ( talk) 10:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC) reply
— Ed (talk • contribs) 04:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Thanks Ed for the very valid comments and recommendations. Rgds. Farawayman ( talk) 11:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Joe N 21:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Unsuccessful. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has been substantially improved since its last review. It seems appropriate to work to improve it for November 11.
LeadSongDog
come howl
05:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
I think that will do for now. Frankly, I'm surprised this didn't go up for peer review first, then GA; there's no way this will be A-Class any time soon. Skinny87 ( talk) 07:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC) reply
|title=
). The high rate of false positives rather obscures the real work to be done. I just left a note at
User_talk:Gary_King#Peer_reviewer_script, who seems to be the current maintainer afaict.
LeadSongDog
come howl
21:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replyOppose – sorry, but this still requires significant work:
It will take a lot of work to get this article up to standard. However, I would encourage you to keep up the excellent work, it will all be worth it in the end and it would be excellent to have such an article up to a high standard. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 00:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Prior A-class review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Armed Forces of Liberia/archive1
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because much has been incorporated and changed based on the recommendations of the previous A-Class review, and I'd like to see whether it's ready for A-class. Buckshot06( prof) 06:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Prose needs work.
Here are random points at the top, which suggest an independent copy-edit is due. The prose is not too bad, but now would be a good time to spruce it.
Tiny tiny images. The default size will be boosted from 180 to 220 in a few days' time, but even so, I'd force to 240 or 250.
It's not hugely below Class-A standard, but does need a lift. Tony (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose Still badly structured. The history section starts with one large unstructured amount of information that hardly explains the purpose of the Liberian forces for suppressing the natives and does not mention how they handled uprisings and how frequent that was. You must totally rework the structure. If you want a history section make it a short summary with larger subsections.
Lots of non-essential information like listing non-noteable commanders. Compare this to US Army. They don't list every general there.
There are too many quotes that could be reworded make part of the text. Wandalstouring ( talk) 14:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article on one of Byzantium's greatest generals for A-Class review because I feel its is complete and fulfills the relevant criteria. I eventually intend to give it a shot for FA, so the more thorough the review, the better. Thanks in advance to everyone for their time. Cheers,
Constantine
✍
21:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comments First, fascinating article, and nicely done. It's a real problem to construct articles pre-1400 or so because of the paucity of material. You've done a nice job pulling this together. That said, there are many prose issues here. Just in the first section alone (early life and the first submission) I've identified confusing or awkward sentences/paragraphs. In some cases, the importance is "lost in translation" but in most of these cases, you've used very complicated verb constructions because you've placed your subject in the position of the object (direct or indirect) (and reverse), which requires you to construct convoluted verb strings. Try simplifying this throughout. I've offered some possibilities below: see what you think, and then carry on with the rest of the article. You've got the same problems throughout. Modifying these will strengthen the readability of your prose. Also, I made a minor tweak in the first paragraph.
Do these comments make sense to you? Can you see what could be done? Let me know. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 20:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment
MUCH better. :) still needs some attention at the following kinds of examples: Clarify pronouns--for example:
Translations of Greek--for example:
Unclear meanings--for example:
I made a few minor tweaks. this is looking much better. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 22:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply
maps There eventually could be a more specific use of maps. The present map shows some of the areas where the battles occurred, but it would be more helpful if these were actually marked and some of the extraneous cities erased. Also there are a lot of maps in commons on Byzantineempire, and perhaps it would be useful if one of these could be included to show generally what the empire included, and what K.'s expansionist policy actually meant. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 23:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... The Ed17 was kind enough to suggest I list it here, as there are several military episodes in Khrushchev's career, to say nothing of the military crises during his premiership. This article is headed to FAC in due course, and I'd like it to have a severe test before I subject such an important article to FAC.
Wehwalt (
talk)
18:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Hi. Sourcing. "K blows top" wow... what a... marketing driven title. anyway
Comments.
I spot-checked and copy-edited "Donbas years". I'm confused about Party or party, but instinctively prefer the p unless it's clearly a title. Some of my changes will need your scrutiny; please revert them if they're wrong. I'd like to see an independent copy-edit of this, which would certainly be required before submitting to FAC, if that is the intention. However, it's already looking good.
Just a few random things I noticed: tiny images? I've boosted a few. Please note the changes in the implied norm of default image sizes. Wondering about the "aftermath" image in terms of relevance and ? which city? in the caption. Mao pic looks over-exposed; any chance of fiddling with the commons file? No final period if just a sentence fragment, such as the UN. Even that pic could be a little larger. Soviet–US relations needs an en dash, not a hyphen. Couple of year ranges need similar fixing. You really want the dot at the end of each of the notes? They're not sentences. No big deal, though. Tony (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) PS Likewise, you'd do everyone a favour by cropping the Commons file of the Ulbricht pic, which is weird in composition. Tony (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Talk:Military_Assistance_Command,_Vietnam_-_Studies_and_Observations_Group/GA1 is the last review conducted of the article, a GA review.
Being from outside of the project, I came across this article as a B; fixed the GA review elements, then decided to put it forward. The standard of this article is high, citations are to the point and support the narrative, the narrative is sufficient as a description of the organisational function of the group. Fifelfoo ( talk) 02:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Also notethe previous GAC was an arbitrary driveby YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 05:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply
I am unable to discuss content as it is not a field of which I have any knowledge. If these issues can be addressed and someone with more knowledge of content is prepared to voucher for the article, I could be convinced to change my vote. Cheers. — AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because a number of significant additions and changes have been made since the previous peer review, and I think it may be ready for A-Class.
Buckshot06(
prof)
09:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comments
|alt=
.Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 10:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC) reply
AustralianRupert's comments:
{{
Africa in topic|Military of}}
. I think it's in the too-hard basket.
Buckshot06(
prof)
23:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
reply
Just a few quick ones. — AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments This is an excellent article, and provides a remarkable level of detail on a topic for which there are few sources. I think that it needs a little bit more work for A-class status though:
Nick-D ( talk) 11:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I am looking for feedback on how the article can be improved ahead its FAC, whenever that may occur. This article is currently under the spotlight, hence the construction template. Any suggestions for improvement would be welcome. Note that as this is part of the spotlight effort I am one of only several people that have worked diligently on the article, so others may move to address the issues raised here.
TomStar81 (
Talk)
06:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
reply
Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 07:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because i believe it fufills the requirements to pass an A class review, any comments or suggestions are greatly appreciated
XavierGreen (
talk)
20:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
reply
XavierGreen ( talk) 22:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I think too few information about the German side is given. This "battle" was more of a massacre (but no war crime). It's essentially missing why the Germans didn't surrender earlier. With torpedos gone and heavily outgunned would have been an appropriate moment. Still, they could also have let one ship go and escape. Why did the squadron fight? If you could provide more background on these issues I would be able to understand this event. Wandalstouring ( talk) 13:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Article promoted Nick-D ( talk) 11:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC) reply
First nomination
Second nomination
This article failed two ACRs in 2009 and 2010 due primarily to issues with sourcing, when I was a much younger editor. Since then, I have completely reformatted the sources, eliminated almost all of the online refs, rewritten most of the prose, diversified references and basically redone the whole thing with my greater WP experience. It's ready for round three. — Ed! (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Support
Stating that discussion of the early militia in the original four states is not discussion of the division, is to me like stating that discussion of hydrogen and oxygen is not discussion of water. National Guard units are usually not the product of a start from scratch, but rather are usually the product of the combination, recombination, or elimination of existing elements. In this case, the territorial volunteer militia units are the direct antecedents of the regiments that would be combined to form the division--litterally the division's origin. I cannot conceive of an origin description that leaves them out. As is, only the militia of Oklahoma is directly mentioned, which in a discussion of today's brigade might be appropriate, as a discussion of the division this is an unwarranted lack of ballance. RTO Trainer ( talk) 21:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Currently, the article states: "During this time the division was also reorganized and as a part of this process the 157th Infantry was removed from the division's order of battle and replaced with the 279th Infantry Regiment.[89]" The cite is Varhola's Fire and Ice, history of the Korean War. Either Varhola has this wrong, or the reference has been misunderstood (I don't have a copy of this book to check). The reorganization that replaced the 157th with the 279th occurred in 1946. This is supported by the Lineage and Honors of each regiment, reproduced on the respective regiments' pages: 157th & 279th. In addition there is no reorganization listed in the 45th Brigade's lineage and honors in 1950. RTO Trainer ( talk) 21:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Perhaps the answer to this is a new article, or a new section on the National Guard of the United States page that can be referred to--would be useful to others. The Guard is unique in it's many duty statuses. RTO Trainer ( talk) 21:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Italy Curent statement: "One of the first National Guard units activated for the war, the 45th fought in the 1943 Italian Campaign, seeing intense fighting during the invasion of Sicily and subsequent attack on Salerno." Fighting in Italy covered 4 official campaigns. Perhaps the plural should be used in the article. RTO Trainer ( talk) 23:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment. I spent a while working on just the first two paragraphs, see if that works for you. - Dank ( push to talk) 20:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Not promoted. EyeSerene talk 08:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply
A Medal of Honor recipient article. This just passed GA today, and I think it's ready for A-class. I appreciate any and all comments that help me improve the article towards an eventual FAC. Thanks in advance. --
Kumioko (
talk)
17:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comments, leaning oppose - I would have to agree with Tom that there are quite a few issues with this article. Just a few initial comments I would like to see addressed—in addition to Tom's—before I fully read the prose:
Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 07:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Copy-edit completed as requested through the copy-edit process. Done Please advise what else is needed for A-Class.
Jrcrin001 (
talk)
05:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think I gathered and pushed into the article maybe every piece of valuable verifiable information referable to the subject. Hopefully, it is enough. If not, maybe it would be at least a Good Article.
Flayer (
talk)
21:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because —
Sumanch ( talk) 01:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC) reply
YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 13:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC) reply
This is a referenced claim and if that reference does not satisfy a reader, I can provide more. I believe there are fringe groups who will dispute the validity of the claim but satisfying every fringe idea is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. Sumanch ( talk) 19:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because both
User:Jarry1250 and myself have expanded the article by twenty times, its been through a peer review and we now believe its A class standard
Jim Sweeney (
talk)
11:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
The biggest issue is the prose. While I am going away for a couple weeks and may not be able to check in and change to support, if a copy edit is done by someone very good at it who can improve the prose and the other minor issues I mentioned above are fixed, I can be considered to be in support. – Joe N 15:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments Some concerns, mostly from a MOS standpoint:
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because is is a thorough GA and I have spent a lot of time improving it as much as possible. I think it is ready to be promoted. -
Ed!
(talk)
22:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...of substantial work in updating a stub to a hopefully balanced encyclopedia-level entry, with extensive and reliable references. Article is also about a very significant player in Indian military and foreign policy history, especially with regard to his key status in Indian nuclear postures on the global stage
Jokester99 (
talk)
16:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Jokester99, May 9, 2009
reply
If these issues are adequately addressed, then I should be able to then complete a full review of the prose. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 05:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Midshipman is an important Naval rank, and this article recently passed its GA review. I think its close to A class, so I'm nominating this article for A-Class review. I appreciate your comments and suggestions. Kirk ( talk) 03:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is an interesting
town square with a notable focal
American Civil War monument. I would like to find better sources for the article, but I have been unable to.
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
05:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
I have swapped out some more refs. I continue to believ that the plaque is a WP:RS, which just leaves us a few citations.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 21:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply
I believe this article is of great quality and that it meets all prerequisites for A-Class. I have brought it up from a large paragraph and Stub class to where it is now. I have fixed a lot of the previous problems with it, and added much more content. TARTARUS talk 19:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment - in the article, you have used Second World War, World War II and World War Two. PLease choose one and use that throughout. As this is a Canadian article, the former is probably the best as it is the typical British/Commonwealth usage. Cheers,
Abraham, B.S. (
talk)
22:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
Done
The article has been significantly expanded, re-written, re-organised and comprehensively referenced. It is also a Core Topic Article as part of the Centenary Drive, and I think it's more than ready for A-class Review.
Commander Zulu (
talk)
06:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the editors have exhausted the known English-language sources on the topic, the article has passed a GA review, and I would like to know in particular if it satisfies the scope requirement of A-Class. To our knowledge, this is the first attempt at a comprehensive account of the subject ever published, so it is particularly important that it meets the highest standards. Any comments welcome.
Skomorokh
01:41, 14 February 2009 (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
I believe this article is of great quality and that it meets all prerequisites for A-Class. I have brought it up from a large paragraph and Stub class to where it is now. TARTARUS talk 01:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments
Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 12:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
More difficult article than I originally thought it was going to be. But I finished it. Thanks! JonCatalán (Talk) 21:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
(od) I've copyedited throughout, although I will continue to look at it and improve the prose (to clarify it). But, I don't see how the paragraphs are too long. These paragraphs are no longer than those in any other article I've worked on (which have passed at FAC; compare to Operation Uranus). I will continue to look at the prose, though. JonCatalán (Talk) 03:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply
I've never done an A-class review, so please bear with me. This is a great article, and I'd like to see it promoted eventually. Will there be a corresponding article for Allied forces? Lawrencema ( talk) 01:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Closed as not promoted by Woody ( talk) 16:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
It has been improved to all suggestions in the previous reviews. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 22:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC) reply
I'd also suggest looking back into the previous reviews to see if anything has been missed out.... a couple of points such as the role and actions performed still seems a bit unclear, as is the designations scuh as 102d, etc.
Good luck with this. PS, note that this is my first review, so don't take only my opinion. Cheers. Sniperz 11 @ C S 07:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Buckshot06 The Cold War list of units needs clarification; not all of those were in France with the Wing! Also I've continued rolling the lists at the end into the text as per the previous A-class review; please feel free to suggest amendments on exactly how. Cheers and Happy New Year, Buckshot06( prof) 17:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Buckshot06( prof) 22:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Binksternet
Oppose A-Class status. Too many problems observed.
I could probably find more problems than these if I continued my review but instead, I'll just say that I don't support this article for A-Class at this time. Binksternet ( talk) 19:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments from Lazulilasher Hi, and Happy New Year! This article is in good shape; I've got a number of comments that I hope you find helpful for future improvement.
Well, that's all for now. Hope this helps. Lazulilasher ( talk) 17:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Attention-Is this anyone's IP address:74.242.244.138? If it is please tell me, otherwise i'll cite them for a disruptive edit to the 102nd's page. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 20:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Procedural close as this article is now up at FAC at the same time Woody ( talk) 00:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC) reply
I have been working on this article for the past four days (about to become five). It is currently under GA review, and I think it's more or less ready for A-class. I will copyedit here and there, but I don't think there is anything major impairing it from being promoted (there will obviously be things to change; but I am confident that these will be quick to fix). Thank you. JonCatalán (Talk) 23:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply