![]() | This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. | ![]() |
This article has gone through a Featured Article review and a Good Article review. I believe I have addressed the problems that require fixing. An editor during the Featured Article process recommended an assessment here. Thanks! -- Airborne84 ( talk) 16:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC) reply
No consensus to promote at this time. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC) reply
I am seeking to pass this article for AL class. It is a listing of American Civil War engagements for the year 1861.
Wild Wolf (
talk)
22:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
reply
I think the references are too bundled, making specific details of those huge paragraphs hard to verify. Would like to see:
broken down into more in-line citations, to support individual sentences, esp. those with dates/numbers/stats. Other than that, all seems fine.
Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 11:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 10:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC) reply
No consensus to promote at this time. Anotherclown ( talk) 23:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC) reply
I am seeking to pass this article for AL class. It is a listing of American Civil War engagements for the year 1862.
Wild Wolf (
talk)
22:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
reply
I think the references are too bundled, making specific details of those huge paragraphs hard to verify. Would like to see:
broken down into more in-line citations, to support individual sentences, esp. those with dates/numbers/stats. Other than that, all seems fine.
Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 11:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC) reply
No consensus to promote at this time. Anotherclown ( talk) 23:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC) reply
I am seeking to pass this article for AL class. It is a listing of American Civil War engagements for the year 1863.
Wild Wolf (
talk)
22:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
reply
I think the references are too bundled, making specific details of those huge paragraphs hard to verify. Would like to see:
broken down into more in-line citations, to support individual sentences, esp. those with dates/numbers/stats. Other than that, all seems fine.
Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 11:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC) reply
No consensus to promote at this time. Anotherclown ( talk) 23:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC) reply
I am seeking to pass this article for AL class. It is a listing of American Civil War engagements for the year 1864.
Wild Wolf (
talk)
22:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
reply
I think the references are too bundled, making specific details of those huge paragraphs hard to verify. Would like to see:
broken down into more in-line citations, to support individual sentences, esp. those with dates/numbers/stats. Other than that, all seems fine.
Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 11:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC) reply
No consensus to promote at this time. Anotherclown ( talk) 23:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC) reply
I am seeking to pass this article for AL class. It is a listing of American Civil War engagements for the year 1865.
Wild Wolf (
talk)
22:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
reply
I think the references are too bundled, making specific details of those huge paragraphs hard to verify. Would like to see:
broken down into more in-line citations, to support individual key sentences, esp. those with dates/numbers/stats. Other than that, all seems fine.
Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 11:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Article Withdrawn Adamdaley ( talk) 09:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Although this is primarily a biological article, it contains a fair amount of military history, which
Dank has kindly copy edited. I don't need any more history, since it will make the article unbalanced, and I've no objection to losing a bit. I take full responsibility for the non-military content, so I'm basically looking to improve the prose and referencing enough for your A rating before heading to FAC. Thanks in advance for any reviews you can provide for someone here (almost) under false pretences.
Jimfbleak -
talk to me?
12:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
Comments: Welcome to Milhist ACR. This is not really a topic I feel comfortable giving an opinion on (content wise) as I have no specific knowledge. Anyway, I will focus on small things. Hopefully it helps in someway:
Comments:
I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —
Ed!
(talk)
23:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
reply
Comments at this stage:
Anotherclown ( talk) 02:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. See my previous reviews of your articles for how to handle these problems. - Dank ( push to talk)
Comment: where do we stand with this article now? Given that the last edit was made to the article on 3 August, it is probably best to move to have this nomination closed as unsuccesful. I've tried my best to address the issues above to help out, but I haven't been completely successful. As Ed! doesn't appear to be active at the moment, it is probably best just to close this review and allow him to renominate when he becomes free again. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 12:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator(s): Georgejdorner: ( talk)
I am nominating this list for A-Class review on behalf of George, who requests that it be assessed against the AL criteria (per these requests
[9] and
[10]). Note to co-ordinators: the credit for this list is all George's, I am only nominating it on his behalf as he was having trouble getting the html mark up to work. Regards,
AustralianRupert (
talk)
21:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
reply
Many thanks to Rupert for his assistance. I have never before placed a list for A Class Review.
List is complete. References are both reliable and complete. Please read the Talk page concerning form of the citations.
Georgejdorner ( talk) 22:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment some of the first occurences such as Luftstreitkräfte are not wiki-linked depending on how you sort the list by clicking in the column header. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 13:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Comments This looks pretty good, though I've got some comments and suggestion:
Georgejdorner ( talk) 17:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose Sorry, I'm moving to oppose due to the referencing issue discussed below, and my concerns with the article's lack of an introduction and material which clearly explains the limitations of the data being presented here. Nick-D ( talk) 00:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose on the page number issue alone. This doesn't mean there's anything wrong with your judgment, George, only that you have a misunderstanding of our A-class process. Among other goals, we're trying to introduce editors here to the understandings, compromises and standards that have been worked out at FAC and elsewhere. - Dank ( push to talk) 12:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Third ship of the King George V class built, entering service in 1941 and seeing action throughout the remainder of World War II. She was heavily involved in actions against the German battleship Scharnhorst and significantly contributed to Scharnhorst's eventual sinking. Following the war she remained in service till April 1949 and was eventually sold for scrap on 18 May 1957. Special thanks to
Sturmvogel_66 and
Parsecboy who both made significant additions to the article and finally thanks to
AustralianRupert for his numerous copy-edits which helped get the article to the standard it is at now.
Thurgate (
talk)
23:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
reply
Oppose Sorry, but this article is rather under-developed and doesn't meet the A class criteria I think. While its coverage of the ship's history is broad, it contains some gaps and lacks detail. Some of the grammar is also difficult to follow. Here are my comments:
Comments In addition to those mentioned above.
Oppose, unfortunately, as not enough progress has been made toward fixing this article's comments for several weeks. — Ed! (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment: I did some more copy editing on this tonight and wasn't sure of this:
No consensus to promote at this time Nick-D ( talk) 00:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it seems to meet the criteria for at least A-class, if not higher
Petebutt (
talk)
02:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
reply
Oppose Comments: I'm sorry, but I don't believe that this article meets the
A-class criteria at the moment. I won't oppose at this stage, though, because I think that with a bit of work it could be brought up to scratch. These are a few of the issues that I see:
Comments:
Oppose due to the lack of citations if nothing else. Sorry, but compare this with the De Havilland Comet article also up for ACR at this moment, where each paragraph is fully cited to at least one source, and all operators are also cited. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 15:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment I'm the editor who has done most of the recent adding to this article. Interesting to read the above comments. A few points:
Oppose Mostly for the points listed above by the other reviewers. I would suggest that the list of notable pilots be reworked by incorporating the significant achievements of the aircraft flown by these pilots into the main body of the article. Many more details of the military use of the aircraft would be required for it to be assessed as complete in my eyes.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Closed / not promoted per nominator's request -- Ian Rose ( talk) 06:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because with a little help from all of you I think I can take
Dapi89 (
talk ·
contribs) work to A-class. He and I had been working on this article, with the bulk of the work attributed to Dapi89 so far. As you may know Dapi89 chose to retire from Wikipedia leaving the article where it stands now. I want to bring his work to A-Class. Please help me in the process. Thanks
MisterBee1966 (
talk)
13:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
reply
Comments:
Comment: I haven't appraised most of the article, but I think the Self-appraisal section needs another look:
Grandiose (
me,
talk,
contribs)
22:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
reply
Regretful oppose It's good to see that this high-profile article is of good quality. However, I think that it's prose needs a lot of work. My comments are:
Withdrawn by nominator EyeSerene talk 09:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... It has been extensively expanded. Referenced and cited from reliable sources, has images and an infobox as well as inline citations and has reached GAN status in the last few weeks in three WikiProjects. It is also over 33,000 bytes, has an archival box for talkpage. Has also been nominated for "On This Day..." six times since 2005. Would like to see it progress to an "A class" article.
Adamdaley (
talk)
03:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
Ma®©usBritish[ chat 08:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Here we go again. The last round had two supports. To address last reviewer's final comment, which I missed before the discussion got archived, Polska Zbrojna and Zbigniew Wawer seem reliable. No, Wawer does not provide a list of most bloody Polish battles; but he is an expert on the subject and I see no reason to dispute his claim. In any case, his claim is attributed in text. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 12:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment:
Farawayman ( talk) 23:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment Support
Further copyediting is recommended if it's intended to take the article to FAC. Thank you for an enjoyable read about a battle I knew nothing about. Best, EyeSerene talk 10:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Not promoted EyeSerene talk 12:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...I believe it covers the subject to the maximum amount that can be achieved with the (remarkably scarce, considering) sources available; does so clearly and in a well-referenced way, and is both an educational and enjoyable read.
The Bushranger
One ping only
23:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
Oppose for now, mainly contingent on the above comments not yet being addressed. I'll support once these, and my own, are addressed.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has been significantly updated since previous B review, addressing the citation style and source issues. Appreciate feedback on how to improve it further.
Gilesforrest (
talk)
22:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
This article achieved GA a while ago and has been peer reviewed. I have followed suggestions from other editors to the best of my ability; thought it was time to try out for A-class. Thanks--
Wikipedian1234 (
talk)
19:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
reply
Copyright check File:Rutherford trace map.jpg has an inappropriate non-free rationale, because it is replaceable. Even if no map of the military campaign exists, it is possible to create a free one. You just need a free map of the area (or a free map of a bigger area, and cut the desired part) and add the points of the military campaign. Cambalachero ( talk) 13:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply
-- Magic ♪piano 21:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Not promoted -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 07:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Procedural renomination, as the last one did not generated the minimum of three reviewer comments needed; only one reviewer commented with a support. So, Round 2. I hope we won't have to do a Round 3.
Round 1 archive is here. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
talk to me
00:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
reply
Oppose for now at least. This article has a lot to recommend it, but it's rather incomplete.
Closed / not promoted -- Ian Rose ( talk) 00:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC) reply
A biography of one of the best known Polish military commanders, from the Golden Age of Poland. Also, an illustration of how our standards change. This was one of my first FAs years ago, in the days of Brilliant Prose. Earlier this year I got around to adding inline cites, and bringing it to a GA status. Now, I hope we can move it forward to A-class, and eventually, FA-class.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
talk to me
19:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
reply
Comment: I think the lead needs some enlargement, and maybe some prose tweaks. I just don't think we get enough of the man through it compared to the rest of the article, which is commendably thorough. I would however strongly recommend that more sources should be added to complement Podhorodecki, which appears to cover two-thirds of the references and approximately that of the prose. At the moment it may just about meet "relevant body of published knowledge" (A1), but in the current state it will struggle with FACR #1 "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Grandiose (
me,
talk,
contribs)
23:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
reply
Not promoted -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 06:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply
A GA of mine about a strike that was suppressed with a military force in communist Poland. I'd appreciate comments on what needs to be done to make it A-class worthy. Thank you,
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
talk to me
19:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
reply
Closed / no consensus to promote -- Ian Rose ( talk) 11:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because having passed GA (
review here), I'm looking to move this article on towards FA. I have brought this article to an A-class review here, rather than a standard peer review, as I thought it would be the more insightful of the two. Cricket is clearly my main area of expertise, and it would be good to get some knowledgeable eyes on the military section of the article. Feedback on whether the cricket information is understandable to non-experts would also be useful.
Harrias
talk
14:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
reply
Post-closure review (I edit-conflicted with the closer)
Comments:
Hope this helps for future development, EyeSerene talk 11:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Withdrawn by nominator EyeSerene talk 12:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... This article is reasonably close to being an "A-class" article with the amount of information, images, references etc. I would like to see it "A-class". Because I've never promoted an article to "A-class" before.
Adamdaley (
talk)
05:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
reply