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.
Operation Title was a valiant but failed Allied attack on the German battleship Tirpitz during October 1942. The attack plan was like something out of a thriller, with a Norwegian trawler smuggling two British manned torpedoes through heavily defended waters. While the manned torpedo crews were superbly trained and likely to have crippled Tirpitz, the operation failed at the last moment when shoddy workmanship caused both of the craft to be lost when they separated from the bottom of the trawler during a storm. The Allied personnel attempted to escape overland to Sweden, with one of the British seamen being captured and murdered by the Germans and the others making it across the border.
This is my first ACR in quite a while, and a return to the topic of attacks against Tirpitz I've been working on over quite a few years. I created the article in March and it was assessed as a GA in April. It has since been expanded considerably, and I'm hopeful that the A-class criteria are met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see you back around. ACR is pretty slow right now; if you're able to help out with reviews on other nominations, that would be greatly appreciated!
Move the wikilink to aircraft carrier to the first mention (the Ark Royal) rather than where it currently is (the Victorious).
"..but did not specify what they would be involved to preserve secrecy." This doesn't quite make sense. Either remove "they", or add "in" (personally, I favour remove "they").
"..to the west of Trondheimsfjorden (English: Trondheim Fjord)." Move the English translation to the first mention in the body, which is the 4th paragraph of the Background section.
Switching back to the lead: "The attack was cancelled following.." I think "cancelled" gives the wrong impression here; I'd favour "abandoned", mirroring the language in the third paragraph.
"This boat suffered mechanical problems during the voyage to Norway and while it was operating in Norwegian waters which caused delays." For clarity, consider adding "both" before "during the voyage".
References are of good quality and neatly formatted
HMSO vs Her Majesty's Stationery Office
Both are correct - the name seems to have changed from Her Majesty's Stationery Office to HMSO at some point: I've used what the books use. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does HMSO need to be linked? None of the other references are
explain in the lead that the team had to scuttle the mothership in the Trondheimsfjord due to mechanical failure. It currently sort of begs the question why they didn't just leave.
Did the British know that a nearby aircraft carrier would avoid an attack by Tirpitz on a convoy? Via Ultra perhaps?
Not sure, and that's probably outside the scope of the article. They needed to assign capital ships to each convoy, and I've added text on this to the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't the original intent to attach the Chariots with steel hawsers to the eyebolts that Larsen had installed? Why were they attached using ropes attached to cleats on the deck?
was Larsen the effective commander of the mission?
It seems so, but no source explicitly says this. I suspect that the arrangement was that he was in command until the Chariots started their operation. Everyone seems to have deferred to him throughout the operation. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath
do we know what Evans told the German Navy if anything?
Keitel personally authorised Evan's execution? Given the Commando Order, couldn't the German commander in Norway have authorised it? Seems overkill (so to speak).
Multiple sources state that Keitel was the decision maker for this murder. Even if this could be approved locally, I suspect that commanding officers were kicking this matter upstairs to try to reduce their culpability, especially as this wasn't long after this criminal order had been issued. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you could drop the comma from "Both were found guilty of war crimes, and executed"
has the poor serviceability of the boat engine been identified by historians as a lesson learnt? The two breakdowns and half-speed sailing seem to have had a significant impact on the failure given the delay they caused and the fact that an earlier attack would have avoided the poor weather.
Yes, this is noted in the assessments section. Perhaps oddly, no historian is critical of the use of the particular boat here - it does seem odd to have trusted an intricately prepared mission to a clapped out boat. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
After coming back from a long wikibreak, I present this article about a Soviet tank unit during the Winter War. Surprisingly, thanks to two detailed histories of Soviet armor during the war, I was able to write a GA-length article, and I'd like to improve it further. Kges1901 (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the fairly low ordinal and lack of obvious Soviet nomenclature, I think it would be appropriate to preemptively disambiguate this article as (Soviet Union). There certainly is potential for confusion with the Dutch 13th Light Armoured Brigade, and it is probably not the only one with a very similar name when translated into English.
Can be moved pre-emptively after ACR.
Lead
suggest linking brigade
Done
a bit more context for the para beginning "An ambitious plan..." is needed. ie "In 1939, the Soviet Union demanded that Finland..., and when the Finns refused, decided to invade..."
None, because before November 1935 the Soviets did not have traditional ranks, with commanders referred to by their position.
suggest reversing "One of the original two" to "One of the two original"
Done
perhaps a sentence explaining the origin of the Uritsky honorific? Also, should the bolded alt title in the lead be "31st Uritsky Mechanized Brigade"?
Done
"sent to Spain" is a bit easter-eggy. Could you just expand that to state that he was sent to Spain to assist the Republicans side in the Spanish Civil War (assuming that was what he was doing)?
Done
suggest "which also claimed six other brigade officers, including the commissar and chief of engineers."
Done
Given the earlier mention of Gorev, suggest "Baranov, the final brigade commander, was another of the Soviet tankers who had been sent to Spain to support the Republicans, among them personnel from the 31st Brigade."
Done
link Military doctrine
Done
where is Porkhov?
Done
link Estonia and Latvia (sadly few will know of them)
suggest "When the war began"→"When the invasion began", seems a bit euphemistic at present
Done
should the 1st Light Tank Brigade and the 15th Motor Rifle and Machine Gun Brigade be redlinked?
Probably going to need to write up some articles first. This is the only article on a pre-1941 Soviet tank brigade.
delete "corps'" as you've already explained it was part of the corps
Done
what size settlements were Riikoli, Suupork, Rautu, Suokas, Peinola, Lähde? villages/towns?
Clarified. Some of these may not exist anymore, so it's hard to find out where they actually are.
"the 13th Tank Battalion, 205th Reconnaissance Battalion, and 158th Sapper Battalion" but was the latter attached from corps or higher troops, or is this actually the 158th Motorized Machine Gun Battalion?
Good catch, it was the 158th. The acronyms are similar in Russian.
link anti-tank gun and land mine
Done
suggest "The 1st and 13th Light Tank Brigades" for clarity
Done
in which part of Karelia was independent massed tank operations impossible? It is a big region.
The source says the Karelian Isthmus. This was the reason why the Soviets eliminated their tank corps headquarters soon afterwards (along with failures during the Soviet invasion of Poland).
the Tali station, railway? Same for Kämärä
Done
suggest "A detachment from the battalion" to avoid repetition of 205th Reconnaissance Battalion
so, was the 9th Separate Tank Battalion different from the 9th Tank Battalion? If so, from what formation was it detached? If not, suggest using the same unit title throughout to avoid confusion. In general, I found myself having to look earlier in the article to remind myself what type of unit the 205th or various other battalions were, so just using the ordinal can be confusing to the general reader who isn't familiar with the units concerned.
Added full unit names where necessary, and consistency
In a similar vein, "When the T-28 medium tanks of the 20th Tank Brigade"
Done
"under direct army control" meaning 7th Army? or higher?
Clarified
Boboshino or Bobochino?
Corrected
dugouts? Meaning what exactly? Not something with overhead protection, presumably? A depression with banks on three sides?
The Russian word translates as simply dugout (for example this military dictionary. That's all Kolomiets describes them as, aside from their purpose.
suggest "on 14 February, three mobile groups were created in the 7th Army, which included infantry riding on the tanks. They were inserted..."
Done
do you mean "During this and subsequent operations"?
Good catch.
just in a general sense, I wonder about the point of view from which the almost entirely Soviet or Russian sources are coming in the Winter War section. Soviet offensive failures seem to be categorised mostly as due to Soviet infantry refusing to do things, rather than Finnish resistance, and the Soviets only capture objectives quickly after "stubborn Finnish defence". This type of language is similar to the "heroic" themes used in some German accounts of their operations in WWII, and I wonder if Finnish accounts of this fighting, and more of a sense of what the Finns had in terms of fighting power in this sector would be valuable in balancing the narrative?
It is true that Soviet unit commanders often blamed their failures on adjacent units not advancing fast enough because commanders needed an excuse to justify not accomplishing objectives - typically Soviet unit reports and war diaries use either blame neighboring units or enemy fire for their failures. But in this case, I don't think it glorifies the Soviets to mention their failure to establish effective tank-infantry cooperation, which was a widespread problem judging by Irincheev's account, and Soviet offensive efforts often seem bungled and embarrassingly ineffective. Irincheev incorporates Finnish accounts, and includes negative information on Soviet forces, so his account is objective, but doesn't cover all the actions of the 13th Light Tank Brigade. Kolomiets, who covers the actions of the brigade more thoroughly, also includes negative information, but he didn't use Finnish sources in the same detail as Irincheev did. Having read Soviet propaganda accounts of the Winter War the tone used by Kolomiets and Irincheev is pretty objective. As for the stubborn (also can be translated as sustained) resistance phrasing, this tends to be used in Soviet accounts but upon further reflection sounds like a truism (although "overcoming stiff resistance" is also a phrase one encounters in English-language military history). I've looked through Raunio and Kilin but there isn't much coverage of the battles northeast of Vyborg in the last days of the war. I've added what I could on the Finnish units opposing them. Kges1901 (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...from the 32nd Volodarsky Rifle Regiment of the 11th Rifle Division.: the placement of this phrase doesn't seem right. To me it feels like the info should be imparted earlier. E.g. "The 31st Mechanized Brigade was formed out of the 11th Rifle Division's 32nd Volodarsky Rifle Regiment between May and September 1932..."
Done
Rank for Alexey Skulachenko? They are given for the subsequent commanders in the next paragraph
The Red Army didn't have traditional ranks at the time.
Suggest English translation for Kombrig in brackets?
Done
support the Spanish Republican Army during their civil war, among them personnel from the 31st Brigade.: dupe links here; I also suggest deleting "during their civil war" as that exact phrase is used earlier in this paragraph and it establishes that there was a civil war going on
Done
were assigned to the 8th Army of the district: is this the Leningrad Military District or another district?
Done
in late September and by 27 September concentrated on the Estonian border: suggest deleting "late" as to me 27 September is late September. Also should a "was" be added ahead of "concentrated"?
Done
Winter War
...faced with the demands to cede territory...: don't think the "the" should be there
Done
December battles and interlude
...after an artillery preparation on the next day and approached Suurporkku,...: this sentence needs looking at; something isn't right with the "on the next day and"? Maybe the "and" should be moved to precede "on"?
Reordered
western part of the Isthmus: don't think Isthmus should be capitalised unless the full name of Karelian Isthmus is used, should just be isthmus otherwise. Note that this applies to the instance of its usage in the first paragraph of the Winter War section
Done
Suggest English translation for Komdiv in brackets?
Interlude
Reads OK
Breakthrough of the Mannerheim Line
Reads OK
Advance on Vyborg
353 of its personnel were decorated...: shouldn't start a sentence with a number
Done
Invasion of Estonia and reorganization
Dupe link on Prokofy Romanenko
Done
1st Mechanized Corps commander: as above, shouldn't start a sentence with a number
Done
The deadline for the formation of the corps was extended to 31 July on 23 June.: suggest rewriting this sentence so the two dates are not recited in close succession
I would run the single-sentence opening paragraph into the following one.
Done
An image is captioned "The Summa breakthrough", but the text suggests there wasn't one and the lead explicitly states that there wasn't.
Done
"was formed from of the 11th Rifle". A typo?
Done
Link commissar.
Done
"Brigade commander". Either lower case b or upper case C. Similarly later with "Division commander".
Done
"Pyotr Kotov commanded the brigade until early 1938". Is it known when he took command?
Clarified. August 1937.
"having to overcome the strong Finnish anti-tank defenses". Did the 13th have to overcome them, or the infantry they were advancing behind?
The tank units
"by advancing on the railway stations of Lähde and Kämärä and capturing the Tali railway station." What is the difference between advancing on and capturing?
direction of the unit's advance vs objectives
Suggest "on" → 'towards' then.
"the 9th Tank Battalion with three flamethrower tanks". With three flamethrower tanks attached; including three flamethrower tanks; or was that the full strength of the battalion?
Attached
While "tankist" is a word, consider using the (much) more common 'tanker'.
Done
"and 153 the Medals "For Courage" and "For Battle Merit"." All 153 received both medals? Or should "and" be 'or'?
The discussion above 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.
I split this article off from Military logistics, which I am still working on. This is one of those high-level articles that a traditional encyclopaedia has, but where the Wikipedia is sadly deficient. I have tried to make a start with this article, which I created by splitting the history section off from the parent article, Military logistics, which I am still working on, and rewriting and adding material, mainly to the front and the back. Almost all the article is now my work.
If you look at a selection of the top level articles in the scope of our project you'll find that little work has been done on them. There are good reasons for this, the major one being that they are very hard to write. This article has to cover 2,000 years of military history. Ideally, it would be a summary of its subarticles, but none of them currently exist. The task of this article is therefore to cover important developments without getting into to much detail, and it degenerating into a catalogue of battles and wars.
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I am therefore appealing to the project for a bit of help here, for people to look over the sections in areas where they have particular expertise. Specific issues for consideration are the level of detail, what could be omitted and what else should be mentioned, especially important omissions. Opinions are also sought on the layout of the references, whether they sghould be by period or all together, and the Further reading section. Hawkeye7(discuss)21:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, the final boss. The white whale. The city on the hill. The part in the anime where the (first) OP starts playing. I will DEFINITELY look this over. –♠Vamí_IV†♠22:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you say anything about the changing tooth-to-tail ratio of militaries of the world? This could be represented as a bar chart. How did logistics work in the New World? Did the lack of domesticable working animals in the western hemisphere contribute to the fall of the Aztecs and others? Additionally how did Europeans surmount the distance from home problem in the new world. How did logistics work in the new world prior to Columbus? Hunter gatherers don't keep surpluses of food, but how about weapons? Obsidian spear tips have been found in Ohio. There are no volcanos in Ohio. How did it get there? You kind of touched on this, but I would also like to know more about the evolution of push vs pull logistics. Did quicker forms of communication contribute to more pull and just-in-time logistics? More information about the trend of globalized economic warfare (i.e. when did nations start cooperating to refuse passage to enemies of their allies?). Please say something about standardization of NATO equipment (especially calibers and fuels), dieselization in the '60s (the range of the gas M48A2 is 160 miles compared to 300 mi for the diesel M48A3) and metrification. When did armies start bringing their own gas fuel for heating meals instead of relying on wood? Should probably mention that canning was explicitly invented to preserve food for soldiers. Need something about airdrop. Shinseki's Army and the conversion of Heavy Brigades to Stryker brigades and brief flirtation with intratheatre lift should probably be mentioned. What about aerial refueling and transcontinental strategic airlift? The Suez and Panama Canal? Are new passages through the arctic relevant? Use of GPS? What is the U.S. base strategy and when did that come about? How does the U.S. military stockpile equipment abroad in ready reserve? NATO palletization and Russia's failure to adopt this. Article should note corruption and failures of accountability in Russian supply depots and a failure to invest in support vehicle acquisition. Schierbecker (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe also the discovery of the cause and cure for Rickett's, allowing for longer deployments and blue water navies. Have you ever read Omnivore's Dilemma? The first chapter where he laments the explosion of production of kilocalories from processed corn, namely corn syrup, consumed by world. The surplus of energy-dense processed food has surely affected the way militaries feed themselves and victims of humanitarian disasters. I don't have a good source readily available, but I'll try to find one. Food surplus on this scale is without precedent in history. Particularly after the Dust Bowl, the U.S. government has subsidized food overproduction partially to meet potential wartime need. Is this done anywhere else? Another interesting rabbit hole: the USDA cheese caves of Missouri. Schierbecker (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rickets (vitamin D deficiency) was not a major problem, since northern Europeans have pale skin, but scurvy (vitamin C deficiency) and beri beri (vitamin B deficiency) were. I've written about this before, so the material is on hand. What is interesting is that the discovery of the cause (vitamin deficiency) dates only to the inter-war period, about 150 years after the treatment was found. I will also add a bit about tropical diseases (malaria) and antibiotics. Hawkeye7(discuss)03:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of armies using gas fuel to heat food. In my day we had hexamine stoves to heat our food and brew a cup of tea. I haven't read the Omnivore's dilemma. I will have a look. Corn syrup is seldom used here; we have to sweeten our tea with sugar, which is produced here in large quantities. Hawkeye7(discuss)03:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I sweeten my tea with honey personally. But I get why corn syrup would be less common elsewhere. But I would think global production of energy dense food staples has increased leading to less famine. Schierbecker (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, but global populations are expected to increase by a third by 2050, thereby wiping out the surpluses. There's an article on this, Green Revolution, but it is out of scope. Most countries that subsidise food production do so for food security purposes. Hawkeye7(discuss)02:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The diesel vs gasoline tank engine controversy is a long-running one in the US. It dates back to World War II, when the Guiberson diesel engine was rejected in favour of the Ford GAA engine. (The General Motors 6046 diesel was used for Sherman tanks shipped to the UK and USSR, which demanded diesel engines.) Early versions of the M48 Patton used gasoline, but in Vietnam the diesel was preferred. I think this is too detailed for this particular article. Hawkeye7(discuss)02:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I trust your judgement. Please let me know if I suggest something in this review that doesn't make sense. I'm not an SME. And that sounds interesting. Do you happen to have any material you could point me to on the subject of that controversy? Schierbecker (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have anything to add on any of these things: the multirole-erization of aircraft, crew reduction and automation (particularly on ships), loitering UAVs? I'm curious also if you've come across any information about the disaggregation of deployable units? In Iraq/Afghanistan I believe the U.S. Army transitioned to Brigade Combat Teams from division size units. Is that part of a larger trend? Can Kabul airlift be mentioned? Schierbecker (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Has modern weather forecasting improved the reliability of logistics? Allied weather forecasting was supreme in WWII due to the strategic location of weather stations in Canada, Greenland and Iceland (See the book, The Forecast for D-Day). Mention some failures to account for weather. Schierbecker (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Military logistics is increasingly taking pages from commercial logistics. Please mention something about Japanese TQM, just-in-time, The Toyota Way and/or Kaizen. Also military analogues lean logistics and focused logistics. Mention challenges to adopting this way as well. Schierbecker (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The South West Pacific Area adopted one of its key features, the block loading of ships for a particular destination. Please define "block loading".
Helicopters were used by the United States in the Korean War to deliver supplies. A statement of the obvious. Was U.S. the first widescale user of helicopters in war? Consider also mentioning Mobile Army Surgical Hospital by name and also state importance of "golden hour."
Hey, I'm new to A-class reviews, but would treat it as extended GA-review. I'm not an expert in military hostory, so please ignore everything that sounds stupid.
I think the passage on the Roman military diet in History of military logistics#Antiquity is quite good (based on a quick read-through). It hits all the things a general reader of this article would need or want to know, maybe more clearly and concisely than either of those two links at present. But I too think that Military of ancient Rome#Diet should be the correct link in terms of where a reader of this article would most benefit from landing, and maybe that section will expand in future. Thanks. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An army of 60,000 required 95,000 litres (21,000 imp gal) for the men and 720,000 litres (158,000 imp gal) for the animals.[15] - I think it's litres of water?
Roads were not necessary for the movement of troops, since the soldiers and their pack animals could just as easily travel along unimproved dirt tracks - but how? Isn't it easier and faster to travel by roads, why it's "just as easily"?
Feudalism was therefore a distributed military logistics system. - is it the same as "Under feudalism, a distributed military logistics system was used."? It reads strange that "feudalism was a logistics system".
While on campaign, soldiers in the medieval period (the fifth to fifteenth centuries) were often responsible for supplying themselves - was it universal, or specific to Europe?
I've added "in Europe" because that is supported by the source. The practice was actually more widespread. I've made a deliberate effort to move away from a Eurocentric article. Hawkeye7(discuss)20:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They were also filled with valuable objects, and wealthy persons who could be ransomed for substantial sums. - "filled with wealthy persons" sounds strange
Supply by sea was not necessarily that much easier than supply by land - but in Antiquity it was it was less expensive to ship a tonne of grain from Egypt to Rome by sea than 80 kilometres (50 mi) by road - was situation the same here? was it still so much cheaper to transport everything by sea, even accounting for loading and unloading, stowage, and moving supplies?
Starting in the late sixteenth century, armies in Europe increased in size, to more than 100,000 or more in some cases. - just for better context - was it because of some technological advancements or because countries became more wealthy and could afford paying for larger armies?
Appert used glass instead of tinplate as the quality of French tinplate was poor, but tinplate was of good quality and widely available in the UK. - maybe replace second 'tinplate' with 'it' to avoid repetition?
The British shipped 5,253,538 long tons (5,337,841 t) of ammunition to France, but 5,438,602 long tons (5,525,875 t) of hay and oats to feed the animals. - I don't have the source, but does it actually have such precision? (I would expect something like "shipped 5 million long tons", but I'm not an expert.)
oh, I completely forgot about the review, sorry for that! I just reread it, and I'm happy to support this great article for the A-class! Artem.G (talk) 07:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"frustrated by logistical difficulties" considering this paragraph praises the Chinese "rich agricultural resources", what are these difficulties that then work against this?
"What they lacked was the land transportation infrastructure" and so how did this affect the conduct of the war?
The article could do a better job signposting that Napoleon's "foraging" was often looting
Very surprised about the lack of a mention of the Lines of Torres Vedras. Massena's army was defeated not by military action but by a scorched earth policy that made foraging impossible for the French and starvation the only option before retreat
G'day Hawkeye, heroic effort to get this together. Given I'm recovering from some surgery, it may take me quite a while to work through this, though it is in fine condition already. So bear with me.
the comparison "from Egypt to Rome by sea than 80 kilometres (50 mi) by road" doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps I'm being too literal, but this is a scenario where sea was the only way to bring grain to Rome from Egypt, and there was no road to compare it to. Perhaps it would be better to use an example within Italy to show the cheapness of sea transport. Or even drop Rome and Egypt from the statement. Surely it was far quicker and cheaper to bring grain by sea along the Roman coast than by road? Maybe I'm overthinking it, but the Med wasn't exactly easy to travel over in the Iron Age, so perhaps it isn't a great example in that respect either.
combination of military forces made up of local troops (owing fealty or allegiance to local warlords or nobles)? - just something to explain the local nature of them.
Not sure what the food render adds. Do you mean that they were able to maintain a considerable retinue of fighting men by moving them around within their lands feeding them using the local populace?
the final two paras of the Napoleon subsection drift away from Napoleon to some extent, and mainly into medical issues, although the links with logistics are not clearly made out. Could you perhaps create a new subsection to introduce medical and disease aspects of logistics here, and make a clearer link? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
in general, is there anything that can be said here or earlier regarding ammunition supply and expenditure for muskets and rifles? Obviously the advent of bolt and gas operated rifles (and earlier firearms tech) increased the need for ammunition resupply.
Post-Second World War (should this be a level higher as it includes Twenty-First century developments? And change the earlier one to "World Wars" or something?
could something be added to bring it right up to date, such as mention of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Y Iraq and Afghanistan are mentioned in the final paragraph. Added a paragraph on the role of logistics in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I had thought that there was little that was new, but recent discussions with the Australian Army indicate that it raised concerns. Hawkeye7(discuss)23:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of the images are from Wikimedia Commons and have the required image information on the Commons pages. All are either public domain or own work with a version of a Creative Commons share-alike license. Clicking on the image leads to the Wikimedia Commons page from which there is a link to the Creative Comments page providing info on the applicable license type. None have restrictions unacceptable for Wikipedia use. Donner60 (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made three small edits: typo correction ("where">"were"), singular word to plural, delete redundant "in shipping."
I have some familiarity with the subject. This is an outstanding summary of its history.
I'm a little concerned that coverage of the logistical aspects of the Eastern Front is pretty minimal. Both the Soviet and German armies used a WWI-style system with extra trucks and both suffered severe defeats when outrunning their supply lines. Even with the flood of trucks provided by Lend-Lease, the Soviets had notable operational pauses between offensives as railheads and supply depots had to be moved forward. I think that something about continuing to use the old ways, including porters, when full mechanization is unaffordable or impractical in terrain like the Kokoda Trail or heavy jungle.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Romans routinely carried supplies for the army in merchantmen or transport ships, called onerariae naves in Latin, and phortegoi, hokladai or skeuophorai neai in Greek. By the first century, ships could carry well over 900 metric tons (tonnes) of grain; vessels of 360 to 450 tonnes were not uncommon. Rougé notes the difficulty of estimating the tonnage of ancient vessels, but estimates that average Roman merchant ships ran from 90 to 150 tonnes. Houston’s analysis shows that though the Chinese built 1000-tonne ships in the 13th and 14th century A.D., 80 percent of their seagoing craft were under 40 tonnes. Similarly, 16th century port manifests from London show that 56 percent were of 40 tonnes or less, 82 percent of 60 tonnes or less and only 4.7 percent were of 100 tonnes or more. This suggests that the average Roman merchant ship probably weighed no more than 30 to 40 tonnes, and almost certainly less than 60 tonnes.
Do we need two images of the same Roman legionnaire's back pack?
Y The relevant part is the back, but if I just display that the reader would not know what they are looking at. Combined the two images in a gallery. Hawkeye7(discuss)21:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any images of logistic operations on the Eastern Front? From either the First or Second World Wars.
Caption: "Assault on a convoy by Sebastiaen Vrancx (c. 1612)". MOS:CREDITS says "Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article. It is assumed that this is not necessary to fulfill attribution requirements of the GFDL or Creative Commons licenses as long as the appropriate credit is on the image description page."
"German horse-drawn supply bottleneck in front of provisional bridges during Operation Michael in 1918". What is a provisional bridge? One which provisions pass over?
The discussion above 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.
This is a first, an entirely post-WWII Yugoslav naval vessel. This one is an Italian 4-man midget sub captured by the Yugoslavs at the end of WWII and briefly used for training in the 1950s before becoming a museum ship in land-locked Zagreb in 1959. Controversially restored to her former appearance as CB-20 under the Italian flag in 2008–2009, she is the only vessel of her class in a fully restored condition inside and out, and you can even climb down into her and check her out inside. She owes her appearance here to the good work of Saxum some years ago, and my recent receipt of Zvonimir Freivogel's 2021 book on the 1945-1992 Yugoslav Navy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
. Laid down in 1943 by the Caproni company in Milan as CB-20, she was ordered by the Italian Regia Marina (Royal Navy) for harbour defence and anti-submarine warfare tasks, but was incomplete at the time of the Italian surrender in September 1943.
The submarine had been on display for almost fifty years before undergoing an extensive internal and external restoration beginning in 2008 involving collaboration between the museum, Maritime Institute, the University of Zagreb and private contractors.
Think about substituting "with" for involving?
Change between to "among" or "amongst"
The most common use for among is when something is in or with a group of a few, several, or many things. The most common use of between is when something is in the middle of two things or two groups of things.
The outer light hull tapered to the stern aft of the conning tower, the boat had a straight keel to facilitate transport by road and rail, and had two side keels to enable the boat to rest on the sea bottom while waiting for a target.
Only two torpedoes could be carried, and reloading could only be conducted with assistance, as the launching cylinders at the rear of the torpedo tubes had to be removed to insert a fresh torpedo into the tube.[5]
Maximum speed was 7.5 knots (13.9 km/h; 8.6 mph) surfaced and 6 kn (11 km/h; 6.9 mph) when underwater.[4][5]
Maximun speed of what? -> The preceding sentence refers to boats of the class...?
Surfaced, at a speed of 7.5 kn (13.9 km/h; 8.6 mph) the boat had a range of only 450 nautical miles (830 km; 520 mi), at 5 kn (9.3 km/h; 5.8 mph) the range was 1,400 nmi (2,600 km; 1,600 mi).[5][a]
To me, this sentence is awkword to read since the "subject" of it is buried in the sentence.
BTW, the first part of the sentemcce uses the indefiite aticles but the last part uses the definite article?
Submerged, at a speed of 3 kn (5.6 km/h; 3.5 mph) the boat had a range of 60 nmi (110 km; 69 mi).[4][5]
At some point between September and October 1944, CB-20 was relocated to the naval base of Pola, where it was captured by the Yugoslav Army (JA) – formerly the Yugoslav Partisans – on 2 May 1945.[4]
At the time of the JA capture of Pola, CB-20's crew attempted to escape, but the boat was damaged by German magnetic mines at the entrance to the harbour, and was forced to return.
Drop the comma after harbour or add "it" between and & was
During her [period of] repairs, the shipyard drew plans of the boat [to] , possibly in order to build more midget submarines for the Yugoslav Navy (JRM),[7] but this did not occur until the Una-class submarines were built in the 1980s.[10]
Due to her small size and difficulty of detection, Mališan had to release air bubbles to indicate her position to the patrol boat crews.
How about this -> Mališan had to release air bubbles to indicate her position to the patrol boat crews, due to her small size and difficulty of detection.
On occasion, senior Yugoslav navy and army officers were brought aboard Mališan.
Tell readers why
Due to ongoing maintenance difficulties, Mališan was stricken on 30 September 1957.[9]
stricken from "what"?
Aftermath:
Her conning tower was removed for rail transport, and the final leg of her journey to Zagreb was on a tank transporter.[11]
Consider substitutng another pronoun or noun for either of the her's
This now allows visitors to climb down through an original hatch into the submarine.
Is now needed?
According to the Technical Museum, in 2011 CB-26 was incomplete and had been restored in an "inappropriate way" (neodgovarajući način),[4] and the Croatian defence and security journalist Boris Švel [hr] reported in 2013 that the interior of CB-26 was in complete disrepair.[12]
Switch "in 2011" to follow incomplte
The restoration work was a collaboration between the Technical Museum, the Maritime Institute, the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture of the University of Zagreb and the companies Baština d.o.o. and EPO-Oroslavje, and was supervised by the senior restorer at the Technical Museum, Zoran Kirchhoffer.
Change between to among
Swith the and after Zagreb to a comma
Change last clause to -> and "it" was supervised by oran Kirchhoffer. the senior restorer at the Technical Museum.
The Technical Museum unofficially asserted that the Italian appearance had "greater historical relevance" and the boat had a "more reliably documented history under its original name and flag", but after visiting the exhibit in 2013, Švel observed that the former explanation was hard to accept given that while the Italians had over twenty boats of the class in service, Yugoslavia had only one.
No worries. ARC noms are at the moment in bad shape and taking way too long to pass them if you compare them with our noms at least a year ago. I remember the golden times where we used to pass at least 15 ARCs a month. Anyway now that I have some spare time I can review again. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Early boats of the class were deployed to the Black Sea". Is it known when? (I have a source which talks a little of the Soviet reaction to them and of a clash with Soviet destroyers.)
I mean that you write "a World War II German puppet state" in the lead, and I would expect to see this at least repeated, if not expanded on, in the main article; the lead after all being just a summary of the main article. I would have expected this after mention of "the Italian Social Republic (RSI)" in "Service history".
The discussion above 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.
This article covers a one and a half year period from 1821 to 1823 when the First Mexican Empire (somewhat) controlled most of the nations of modern-Central America. It outlines the struggle between the Mexican government and monarchists who wanted to annex Central America against republicans and nationalists who wanted to remain independent, eventually resulting in Central America regaining its independence in 1823. This article was built entirely from scratch as little to nothing of its content existed on Wikipedia prior to July 2022, has passed a Good Article nomination in November 2022, and recently underwent an extensive copy edit by the Guild of Copy Editors this month; I believe that this article meets all 5 criteria for promotion to A-class. PizzaKing13¡Hablame!20:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed some licensing issues by adding PD-US tags.
File:ActaIndepElSalvador.JPG if this is kept needs the licensing for the underlying work (see below)
File:Agustin I of Mexico.jpg, File:JoaquindeOreamuno.JPG
File:Gabino Gaínza.jpg Needs more information on provenance (ie. country of origin, publication date, author's date of death) to determine copyright status
File:General Don Felipe Codallos (cropped).jpg it's not clear why the US copyright expired. When was this first published?
File:Ferdinand VII Coin.jpg needs license tag for underlying coin in addition to the existing tag for the photograph
Potential sourcing issues
File:Bandera del Primer Imperio Mexicano.svg, File:Coat of arms of Mexico (1823–1864, 1867–1893).svg, File:Coat of Arms of the First Mexican Empire.svg, File:Flag of the United Provinces of Central America.svg — needs source for these being the correct flag / coa for what it represents
File:Political divisions of Mexico 1821 (location map scheme).svg, File:First Mexican Empire (orthographic projection).svg need source for these boundaries existing at the time
Other
File:ActaIndepElSalvador.JPG—it's ugly and is there really no scan of this you could upload? (Scans do not create copyright—see {{PD-scan}})
File:Vicente Filisola.jpg why is this in the article twice? I'd remove the first image because two images of the same guy is not adding anything
The sources you mention should be added to the image description; it's pretty easy if you go to commons and edit the image description.
Added.
File:JoaquindeOreamuno.JPG is stated to be copyrighted by the uploader, but this is not true. It should use PD-scan and appropriate public domain license tags for the image to show it is both PD in Mexico and the US.
Fixed?
File:General Don Felipe Codallos (cropped).jpg 1838 appears to be the date of creation, not publication
@Buidhe: If possible, could you have another look over this, and confirm if you're happy. It looks to me like some of your points remain outstanding, but I'm not 100%. Harrias(he/him) •talk08:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, while some US tags were added, they are missing rationales for why they would be public domain in US (eg information about publication before 1927). Another editor might be likely to just assume that copyright doesn't apply, as I would probably do if the paintings were any older. (t · c) buidhe14:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tracked down an old publication of a different Agustin I portrait, swapped it in, removed another image without publication info, and as long as no other changes are made I think we're good to go PizzaKing13, Harrias (t · c) buidhe02:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
both Europeans and mestizos. perhaps 'people of European descent' for clarity, and briefly explain what a mestizo is.
Added
Central American infighting over annexation
Aside from the shared legacy of Spanish imperial control and geographical adjacency, what were the reasons for 'the prospect of annexation to Mexico' emerging? Did the Central American colonies see themselves as somehow close to the Mexican ones? Financial concerns? Protection against a Spanish reconquest? Iturbide's letter hints at some of that, but some less biased view from a modern RS would be necessary here. It should be explained because a) to an outside reader, it is surprising that people would want to give away their independence, and b) the dissension about accepting the annexation or not is left unclear, apart from the republican/monarchist divide.
I'll get back to this
I think the wording of that sentence was a bit misleading. The "prospect" of annexation was more meant to be "the mere thought of annexation" rather than "the benefits of annexation". I've reworded that using "idea" instead of "prospect". Regardless, I added that those in favor of annexation argued it would help the region's economy (Carpenter), as well as ideological alignments and belief Mexico would help defend Central America's independence (Kenyon). PizzaKing13¡Hablame!22:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The added explanation is good, thanks!
the K'iche' were in favor of annexation contextualize a bit who/what the K'iche' were, as most readers won't be familiar with them (or why their opinion was important).
Added that they're the largest indigenous group in Guatemala. Basically the only notable thing about their opinion was that they had an opinion at all.
Was the addition reverted? I don't see it.
I had multiple tabs open when editing so I guess I type this into the wrong tab. Added now.
Manuel José Arce, a Salvadoran politician, was one of the primary opponents to annexation and a leading republican figure Suggest moving 'a leading republican figure' after 'a Salvadoran politician'.
Moved
He was arrested for calling the last person mentioned is Barriere
Fixed
publish Agustín's letter publicly repetition/redundancy
What about it is redundant?
Publish publicly ;).
Fixed.
briefly gloss/explain what an open cabildo is
Added
The result of the open cabildos was a decision in favor of complete annexation without any conditions. I see that 67 municipalities did not vote. This and the reasons why should be mentioned.
Added
The Consultive Junta was later dissolved on 21 February 1822
Removed
Are the unlinked signatories of the Act of Union otherwise unknown/unimportant? Even if no articles exist on the English or other wikis, they should still be WP:REDLINKed if there is the prospect of them having an article in the future.
The only active resistance against the annexation was in Costa Rica, El Salvador, and Nicaragua does this really qualify as 'only'? Three out of five provinces?
Removed only
under the command of Chilean Sergeant a sergeant in command of an expedition? Where there no officers available?
I guess. Aceña says that Lieutenant Colonel Manuel José Arce defeated Sergeant Nicolás Abós Padilla
Just to clarify: there are no details on why a sergeant was chosen?
No, only that he was in charge.
Filísola recognized that attempting to subjugate the rebel army would be difficult why? due to public opposition? terrain? guerrilla tactics as mentioned below? These are implied, but left unstated, and given the disparity just mentioned, it should be explained.
they later surrendered to Filísola near the town of Gualcince on 21 February 1823.
Removed
The Electoral Junta was established in Costa Rica on 5 January 1822 after the Interim Junta was abolished The Interim Junta is mentioned for the first time, and the reason why it was replaced is not mentioned. Suggest to start the section with a brief intro of the Interim Junta.
Added context about the Interim Junta. Sources don't give a reason for why the Electoral Junta was established but it probably has something to do with it being founded on the date Central America was officially annexed.
In October 1822 some Costa Ricans became frustrated with Agustín when he abolished the Constituent Congress without a new constitution being drafted. Suggest reversing this, e.g. 'When Agustín abolished the Constituent Congress in [date], without a new constitution being drafted, some Costa Ricans became frustrated with the Mexican emperor'
Changed
absolute leader of Costa Rica 'absolute' has connotations of absolutism/authoritarianism; perhaps 'supreme'?
Changed
José Anacleto Ordóñez, a Nicaraguan soldier and merchant, launched a rebellion against Mexican rule on 16 January 1823. what were the motives here?
Added motive
Well yes, obviously he was discontented, otherwise he wouldn't revolt. But was the motivation nationalism, republicanism, personal differences with pro-Mexican figures?
Added nationalist descriptor.
Non-English technical terms like 'caudillo' should be enclosed in {{lang|es|}}
Agustín was forced to abdicate the Mexican throne as a result of the aforementioned plot, or due to other factors?
The plot, added
Central America's independence led many Mexican provinces to desire increased regional autonomy...stated that they would declare independence from Mexico unless a new congress was established and how was this resolved? It is left unclear how this situation continued/was resolved/shaped Mexican federalism. This should be briefly covered.
Since Dawson says 1 US dollar = 1 Mexican peso in 1823, I used Template:Inflation to find today's value in US dollars so that I know I didn't make a mistake myself and so that it will automatically update itself.
The alt text should not be just a repetition of the caption, but describe what the image looks like. E.g. Iturbide's portrait could be 'Oil painting of a standing man in early 19th-centuy military uniform'.
What about now?
Bibliography is fairly extensive, and looks to be coming from WP:RS. I am not familiar with the topic and its scholarship, but the cited work look appropriate.
That's it, at least for a first pass. I found the article easy to read and understand, and learned a lot in the process. Well done. Constantine ✍ 19:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Way out of my field of expertise, but there is a lot of good work here and and it is unfortunate that reviewers have been thin on the ground. Looks fine to me, but some comments to demonstrate that I read it.
We don't normally link the names of present-day countries. (MOS:OVERLINK)
Done
A bold item in an article means that it links back to this article via a redirect. Captaincy General of Guatemala does not, so unbolden and link to its own article.
G'day PK13, I'll take a look at this in a few bites.
Lead (I will come back to this at the end as well)
Suggest you clarify if you are referring to the modern nations or nations/regions existing at the time
Done
OK, I get that much, but this topic should be explained, at least in the first instance, by reference to the political subdivisions that existed at the time, not the current polities (even if they have the same names). Am I to understand that the Spanish Empire had a colony known as the "Captaincy General of Guatemala" which consisted of six intendancies (or regions)?
Reworded to From January 1822 to July 1823, the Captaincy General of Guatemala, a former Spanish colony, was controlled by the First Mexican Empire, and briefly, the Supreme Executive Power. The captaincy general consisted of five provinces—Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua—and they were the five southernmost provinces of the Mexican Empire. The incorporation of Central America brought Mexico to the height of its territorial extent.PizzaKing13¡Hablame!18:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"forcing Mexican and allied Guatemalan soldiers to forcefully subjugate" forcing/forcefully. Suggest "and Mexican and allied Guatemalan soldiers used force to subjugate"
Done
suggest "Just over a year was spent on a military campaign that defeated the resistance and ended in the annexation of El Salvador in February 1823"
Done
link coup d'etat
Done
suggest piping Second Central American Civil Wars so that only "Second" is red.
Rather than "It included the establishment of a constitutional monarchy. The plan also issued special protections to the Catholic Church, which would also be declared as the state religion; to the army; and to both people of European descent and mestizos (people of mixed-European and indigenous ancestry)" I suggest making it clearer that these are the three guarantees. Something like: "It contained three key provisions: the establishment of a constitutional monarchy, that Catholicism would be the state religion and would receive special protections, and that the army and people of both European descent and mestizos (people of mixed-European and indigenous ancestry) would also receive special protections." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to that
state Gabino Gainza's role at the time. Captain-General of Guatemala?
Added
also, was Gainza really opposed to independence? His article suggests he was a signatory?
Gaínza opposed independence because he wanted to remain with the Spanish monarchy but changed his mind when told he could stay as captain general (Stanger 1932, p. 32). Added that context and reworded the sentences around it to make the wording less awkward.
Munro really doesn't support "became semi-independent nations". The book describes them as provinces and then states, not nations (or semi-independent). Unless I am missing something? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The independence of Central America was not considered to be a priority by Spain, due to its relative insignificance in comparison to their other colonies of New Granada, New Spain, and Peru, which they were still fighting for control of." But wasn't Central America part of New Spain? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Specified that the Spanish were more worried about northern New Spain (Mexico)
Reworded to say that most indigenous Central Americans didn't care about the annexation question since it didn't affect them
"The result of the open cabildos was a decision in favor of complete annexation without any conditions." it was not quite so cut and dried as that, was it? The para after the table makes it clear that 67 cabildos weren't even counted. I suggest removing this and letting the more nuanced para after the table tell the story. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More or less yea it was basically like that. "Of the one hundred seventy, one hundred four were for annexation according to Iturbide's letter [...] the public was assured that the one hundred four voting unconditionally for annexation constituted an absolute majority of the population" (Stanger 1932, p. 38), or at least that's what Gaínza claimed but that's how it went into the historical record ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. + I moved the sentence you quoted to the paragraph after the table.
I also think the table gives the wrong impression. Esp the percentage. Shouldn't it be presented as a percentage of the total number of cabildos rather than the number of cabildos counted at the point the declaration was made? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added from Munro 1918, p. 24 that they were politicians and religious leaders. Also there is no information that I can find on who was on the junta other than Gaínza was its leader :,) PizzaKing13¡Hablame!05:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Annexation and subsequent separatist conflicts
suggest dedicated→committed
Done
the Guatemalan troops were commanded by a sergeant? How many of them were they? What about the rank of his replacement? Is this known?
1.) Yes 2.) Source doesn't say 3.) Colonel
suggest "Filísola sent a message of the armistice to Agustín"→"Filísola advised Agustín of the armistice"
Changed
suggest "imperial throne of the Mexican Empire" imperial=Empire
Changed
suggest "Additionally, oOn 10 November 1822"
Changed
"Before Filísola's forces invaded El Salvador" seems out of chronological order
I don't know where to put it without it being thrown in randomly since the date the envoy was sent isn't mentioned.
In general terms, where you are giving dates that follow each other in the same year, and in the same paragraph, you can drop the year, ie 13 January 1822 then 31 January. You should check this throughout the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
in a general sense throughout the article, I'm finding it difficult to understand who was running which regions and on what authority. Were the regional governors appointed by Agustin, were they legacy appointments of Spain, or were they just local strongmen? It would be good to draw threads through the article to explain how a particular junta came about, whether by seizing power, local notables "selecting" a group or individual, or by approval from Agustin. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Costa Rica: "Civil war in Costa Rica" (added parenthetical for Barroeta, added info for his 4 successors) explains everything asked for
El Salvador: "Central American infighting over annexation" paragraph 3, "Suppression of Salvadoran resistance" (added mention for Filísola) + "Abdication of Agustín" paragraph 3 explain everything asked for
Guatemala: "Suppression of Salvadoran resistance" paragraphs 1 and 2 explain everything asked for
Honduras: Not mention (nothing relevant to the article's topic occurred)
Nicaragua: "Unrest in Nicaragua" (added parenthetical for Saravia) explains everything asked for
this section clarifies matters about the local regional governance to an extent, but it is still confusing above, and my point about who was in charge, where and when in the narrative stands.
Economy
"decadence" is an odd usage of the word. In such circumstances, "decay" would probably be more appropriate.
The exact quote from the text is "The decline probably commenced before independence, for in 1822 the provisional government was seeking advice on what to do about the “state of extreme decadence” of the textile industry." (Smith 1963, p. 506.) Should I change it to "state of extreme [decay]"?
I don't understand why not making loans to miners would affect the amount of money being produced.
I don't either, but that's what the government commission said. "But the real cause of the mint’s inactivity, the commission found, was the lack of a plan to encourage production by making loans (rescates) to miners." (Smith 1963, p. 498) The text doesn't elaborate further. My best guess would be that they were silver miners so that the mint couldn't make more silver coins, and a little later the text says that the mint undervalued silver. PizzaKing13¡Hablame!02:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to link Guatemala etc (MOS:OVERLINK)
Fixed
Some publishers and locations are linked and some are not.
Fixed
All references are high quality and nicely formatted.
Some have OCLCs and some do not.
Added, though there were some where nothing popped up
Rodríguez & Edmundo (1993) is a journal article in Historia Mexicana - move to the journals section
Fixed
Zoradia V(1997) is a book - move to the books section
Fixed
Spot checks: 8, 21 - ok
fn 42: Chiapas separation from Guatemala on 26 September nis sourced, but cannot find the bit about 200 troops
fn 43 (now fn 42) is supposed to be the reference for the 200 soldiers. Moved around the wording so that there isn't a splice in the references
fn 103, 115: Cannot find cited information
103 removed
115 (now 114) is citing the name "Captaincy General of Guatemala" as being the captaincy general's name. [52][55][56][58] cite "At the regional level, the five provinces were organized into the" if that's what the problem is. Added Munro 1918 p 24 which does say that the five provinces were part of the captaincy general.
The discussion above 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.
In late 2021, I brought what I believed to be the first article relating to the New Zealand Wars to be nominated for an A-Class review; that was the Siege of Ngatapa, an engagement that took place at the tail end of the New Zealand Wars. The present A-Class nomination, Battle of Puketutu, relates to one of the earliest engagements of the conflict, taking place in 1845 as part of the Flagstaff War. It was the first time that the British attacked an inland pā, and they discovered to their cost that these types of fortifications were not easily overcome. I created this article at the start of the year, put it through the GA process, and now present it for consideration for A-Class. As always, thanks in advance to those who take the time to have a look. Zawed (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A thought - would it be better to clarify in the infobox that it was the crews of Hazard and North Star involved? Just listing the ships implies a traditional naval ship vs. shore supporting role, at least to me
"Used for grazing livestock, State Highway 1 runs past the location" - this needs rephrased somehow - it currently implies that the highway itself is used as pasture, not the battlefield
Not my sources to hand, but there is one (Crosby) at my library that I will need to check. I have a recollection of reading somewhere that it was traditional to abandon a pa after an engagement where lives were lost, will look into this more. Zawed (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I haven't found anything to match my recollection about abandoning a pa due to loss of life, but it turns out Belich provided some context on the strategy for the siting of Heke's pa, which goes someway to addressing your query. I have added an explanatory paragraph to the final portion of the Government response, and adapted the first paragraph of the Aftermath section. Zawed (talk) 09:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Early historians of the Flagstaff War incorrectly referred to the site as being Ōkaihau, which was actually Nene's pā a few kilometres to the west" - while the source does confirm that this was occurring as of 1922, it doesn't really support that only early historians were making this error
Is a very brief description of how the British destroyed the Pomare coastal pa, worthwhile, since the aftermath section implies that inland pas had special considerations for their defeat?
"Heke also had a 6-pounder cannon in the pā" - do we know where this gun was aquired from?
No - I had thought that it might have been scavenged after the fighting at Kororāreka but according to Cowan, all the guns there were spiked so would have been useless. Zawed (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
was the 6-pounder fired in the battle? Were there usually gun ports in a pa?
This 6-pounder has been the source of a bit of frustration (see Nick's review above)! Its presence in the pa was noted in one source; the wording suggests that it was only after the pa was abandoned that its presence was known, but this source was also silent on the origin and use, if any, of the 6-pounder. I suspect it wasn't used at all as I am sure it would have been mentioned elsewhere if it had been. Zawed (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:HekeKawiti1846.jpg: Is suitably captioned and licensed, but could do with the source link in Commons updating, as it is dead. Consider adding alt text.
I have deleted the flag images and added alt text for the remaining images. I also fixed the source link for the HekeKawiti1846.jpg image. Thanks for looking at this. Zawed (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
The first large-scale naval battle between Ottomans and Venetians was the main event of a brief, almost unofficial war between the two powers, and a triumph for the Venetians. We have a fairly detailed description of it (albeit one-sided) by the Venetian commander, the famed Pietro Loredan. The article was written back in 2017 and passed GA in the same year. I recently completed an on-and-off again overhaul with some additional sources, and it should be ready for A-class and eventually FA. Constantine ✍ 20:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"then retired about a mile from" Convert the mile here.
Done, although not entirely sure which mile is meant here; have gone with the approximate Venetian mile.
"naval engagement since the War of Chioggia" Add a year here.
Done.
"still menaced by the Hungarian king Sigismund in Friuli" This looks like a MOS:EGG?
If you mean Friuly, not really: the geographical region and the political entity were pretty coterminous at the time.
"Even so, during the Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430)" --> "Even so, during the Siege of Thessalonica of 1422–1430"?
Good point, done.
In the note h: "demilitarized under the terms of the Treaty of Turin (1381)" --> "demilitarized under the terms of the Treaty of Turin of 1381"? Looks a bit better.
Complete outside my area of expertise, so comments deal with trifles. Very informative article though.
I draw your attention to MOS:BIRTHDATE: Beyond the first paragraph of the lead section, birth and death details should only be included after a name if there is special contextual relevance.
Replaced these instances with paraphrases
And Wikipedia:Citing sources: Quotations should be immediately followed by a reference, even if the paragraph has one.
I have little knowledge of this period of history, so my comments relate more to prose and clarity than anything else.
Lead
a fleet of the Republic of Venice and the fleet of the Ottoman Empire : this wording implies that Venice had more than one fleet, which is contrary to note a, and the Ottomans only one.
Good point, altered accordigly.
Ottoman naval base of Gallipoli.: is it important to refer to Gallipoli as a naval base, as it seems the mentions in the lead to Gallipoli are in the context of it being a city? Maybe reword to "the port city of Gallipoli, a key Ottoman naval base."?
Thanks for the suggestion, adopted.
killing the Ottoman admiral,: suggest "killing the Ottoman commander," as there is no mention in the article body of Çali Bey being a admiral.
'admiral' was chosen in the sense of 'naval commander', but I get your point.
Background
In June 1414, Ottoman: should that be 1415 rather than 1414, the previous paragraph refers to late 1415?
The date is correct. There are separate sets of raids and therefore separate chronologies. I've tried to separate the two further.
galley captains (sopracomiti), while Andrea Foscolo and Delfino Venier were designated as provveditori (superintendents) : the English translation is provided first for galley captains and second for superintendents. Shouldn't they be consistent or am I missing something?
You are correct, amended.
and with securing the release of the Venetian prisoners taken in 1414.: are these prisoners from Andros, Paros, and Melos or the 1,500 captives from the second raid of Euboea? Either way didn't these events take place in 1415? The Euboea raid in June 1414 (note my comment on the year though) says 200 were released years later, so assume you aren't referring to these.
The captives from the raid of Euboea in 1414 are meant. The others were not Venetian citizens. But clarified.
Coming back to this section after reviewing the aftermath section, it seems to me that the 200 mostly elderly, women, and children prisoners are the 200 mentioned in the aftermath section; if I am correct, I suggest deleting the mention in the background section to avoid confusion.
Not sure I follow where the confusion is, especially with the clarification added. The text is long, and it bears repeating, as well as warning the reader that Venetian efforts were not really successful.
convey the two ambassadors to the Sultan.: suggest envoys here (and elsewhere where ambassadors are used) rather than ambassadors for consistency with the earlier descriptions, plus I am not entirely sure they mean the one and the same. Same applies to the mention of embassy later in the paragraph (perhaps delegation may be a better word to use there?).
Hmmm. I may be wrong, but envoy is more generic than ambassador, which is what these men definitely were: properly accredited representatives of their government. (It is to be argued even that Venetian envoys were the first true ambassadors in a modern sense, receiving instructions, writing reports, etc.) An envoy might be a soldier sent to meet the Venetian fleet to carry a message from ashore. For consistency, I have changed to 'embassy' or 'ambassadors' where the Venetians are concerned, and kept 'envoy' only where the position of the person is unclear.
In hindsight I think was overthinking this one - I should have asked what the sources say, and if that is ambassador, then this is fine (but am happy with your changes also). Zawed (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
he turned on the other Ottoman ships.[60][53]: if it is a thing for you, the cites are not in numerical order here.
Not really, but it is nice to have them in order :).
Aftermath
Especially the return of prisoners rankled with the Venetians,: suggest "The return of prisoners especially rankled with the Venetians,..."
Done, but slightly altered to avoid the repetition of 'especially' further on.
Looking at the image tags, with one exception these look fine. The only one I am uncertain of is File:Galley.jpg; it seems to me that a tag like the one used for the other non-map image File:Mehmet I honoraries miniature.jpg is more appropriate. Zawed (talk) 08:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the lack of response from CPA-5 and the need to move this forward given its age, I'm going to do a review. The article is in fine shape, so I don't have a lot to say:
Background
Sultan→sultan and Sultan's→sultan's throughout
Hmmm, where 'the Sultan' is mentioned, it should be clear that the text refers to the specific holder of the office, i.e. per MOS:OFFICE it should be capitalized, or not?
"carried off a large part of the inhabitants" as slaves?
Indeed, added.
it wouldn't hurt to have a bit more geographical context for the locations mentioned. The map is good, but textual description of where Chios, Phokaia, and Lesbos were/are, for example, would be helpful (ie along the western coast of Anatolia/in the eastern Aegean etc, that the Cyclades are halfway between Anatolia and Greece etc, that Euboea is where it is etc
Done as far as possible, but in some cases (e.g. where the contributions of the Venetian colonies are listed) it would be excessive.
"200 mostly elderly men, women, and children"?
Added.
"the right to equip merchant galleys of" what does this mean? To send them there to collect goods?
Have tried to clarify, I rewrote the section somewhat.
Is the Turkish fleet synonymous with the Ottoman fleet? Likewise Turkish and Ottoman generally?
Yes, tbh I am surprised that this is remarked upon.
link Marino Sanuto the Younger? Presumably this is him?
He has already been mentioned and linked earlier.
I'm not sure the the use of Italian time is helpful to the reader, as it requires following a note to establish what the time was.
Altered to 'late in the afternoon'
"and that the (which fleet, the Ottoman one?) was meant to sail to the Danube"
Clarified.
"the Venetians would not ferry Mustafa's militias" ws this a consideration of the Venetians? Were they assisting Mustafa?
No. It is covered above, that the ambassadors were empowered to treat with Mustafa and other, but only after negotiations with the Sultan failed; here the negotiations had not even begun.
I don't think it is covered adequately. The reader knows about Mustafa, but there had been no mention of the Venetians assisting him to cross, and I think you need to reinforce that they were under orders not to do so until they had treated with the Sultan. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The galley from Napoli, which sailed to his left, was again showing signs of disorder" disorder? Or poor discipline or battle formation?
Clarified
why were the Christians executed?
Clarified
Aftermath
"One of the Turkish captains that had been taken prisoner also composed a letter to the Sultan"?
Fixed.
"Indeed, on 9 July the Senate" link Venetian Senate here, thereafter use lower case senate
Done on the former, re the latter, see my comment on sultan above: when referring to a specific institution or office, it should be capitalized afaict.
Dolfino Venier→Venier, he has already been introduced
I have kept this to avoid confusion with the Candiot commander Domenico Venier.
The discussion above 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.
Dolwyddelan is a small castle in a remote part of Snowdonia, Wales, which is important primarily as an example of a native Welsh fortification and for its associations with Llywelyn the Great and his grandson Llywelyn ap Gruffudd. It is also interesting for its links to medieval Welsh government, the locally-prominent Wynn family, and as an example of Victorian 'restoration'.
The article was very recently promoted to GA status thanks to a wonderfully-handled review by User:Mertbiol, who suggested I 'immediately' go for an A-Class review, so that's what I've done!
My long-term aim is to produce a featured topic equivalent to Castles and Town Walls of King Edward in Gwynedd which covers the major native Welsh fortifications and llys (courts), with this being the first article in that process. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Dolwyddelan Castle was likely built by Llywelyn the Great ... It likely replaced ... This was likely reached" – unexpected and not very welcome American constructions here. The Guardian's excellent style guide says this:
In the UK, if not the US, using likely in such contexts as “they will likely win the game” sounds unnatural at best; there is no good reason to use it instead of probably. If you really must do so, however, just put very, quite or most in front of it and all will, very likely, be well.
I'd stick with "probably" in all three cases in this article.
'Likely' in its adverbial sense isn't listed as a US usage in the OED, so I've kept it in some instances but changed others to 'probably' for the sake of variety. I'm quite relaxed about using perceived Americanisms where they're originally BrE.
If the usage is that objectionable I won't be stubborn about keeping it. Assuming it is an Americanism it could be one of those which has reached the point where it seems natural to some readers but not others, with the pair of us on either side of the divide. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Between 1283 and 1292 there are records of repairs" – there are still those records, presumably, and something on the lines of "there are records of repairs from between 1283 and 1292" would be more accurate.
It was easier to remove the reference to records entirely, given they're not directly quoted.
"including the mock drains and battlements" – what on earth are mock drains?
They're the fake drains which run around the top of the keep below battlement level. A blue link doesn't exist, but I've expanded the description and it's hopefully clearer now.
"The entrance to tower" – missing a definite article?
Fixed
"Cardonchan, Cwm Prysor, and Ewloe, although the latter is more likely" – you can't have the latter of three: you mean "the last".
'Latter' can apply to the last in a group of two or more.
The current edition of Fowler confirms that the proper use is confined to the second of two, though the current editor, Butterfield, notes that the lax use with three or more is seen increasingly often. I suppose the question arises, when does an allegedly 'wrong' use become right because it has become the predominant one (e.g., perhaps, 'decimate', 'regular' for 'frequent', 'who for whom' and 'refute' for 'rebut')? Not yet, in this case, I think. If one wants well-read readers to take one seriously it's wise, I think, to stick to traditional usage until it has definitely passed from orthodoxy into pedantry. But it's your prose and entirely up to you. Tim riley talk17:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would never want to wrongly accuse another editor of being a pedant, even inadvertently! Although I suspect that Fowler is a little behind the curve on this point, since responding to you it has occurred to me that 'the last' is more succinct than 'the latter' and so there's no good reason to use the second where the first will do. Consider me won over. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pedantry? Here is Fowler - the old boy himself in 1926 - "The term, then, is obviously a relative one; my pedantry is your scholarship, his reasonable accuracy, her irreducible minimum of education, & someone else’s ignorance". Still true in 2023. Tim riley talk21:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response, Tim, it's much appreciated and certainly useful. I've implemented most of your recommendations fully, but where I haven't I've explained why. I'm pleased you like the article. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a stranger to MilHist and Class A reviews, but having read the instructions I think I'm on the right track in recording my support for Class A status for this excellent article. Tim riley talk21:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Llywelyn is slightly tricky as the terminology of Welsh kingdoms/principalities and their rulers is quite fluid, so I've followed the lead of our artice title and identified him as 'ruler of the Kingdom of Gwynedd'.
Maredudd was comparatively minor gentry (unlike his descendants), so I've identified him as a 'member of a family from Eifionydd'
I've taken the obvious route and split history into 'early' (up to 1488) and 'late' (after 1488).
Hull (2008), Kenyon (2010), Prestwick (1998), Taylor (1986), Weil (1994), Wilton (2023), : location?
Longley (2009): page number?
fn 7 points to "An Inventory..." but I'm unsure why it is is the position it is, and why RCAHWM is not abbreviated and linked, as it is elsewhere. (Suggest setting the RCAHMW as the author instead, as you have done for fn 5.)
Thank you for looking over the images and sources, it's much appreciated.
I've added publication locations to Kenyon, Prestwich, and Taylor. Hull and Weil were hangovers from before I began editing the article and, since I can't properly access them and the points they support are also supported by other sources, I've removed both. Wilton has no publication location that I can find.
For Longley I'm reliant on Google Books, which unfortunately doesn't give page numbers in this case.
Pettifer has been corrected.
Fn 7 is in that position because those sources refer to the location of the castle, which is mentioned in the preceding sentence. The Royal Commission is abbreviated in Coflein footnotes and endnotes because they use Template:Coflein to create the citation, which automatically abbreviates the name and adds a link. For the other two RCAHWM publications I've used the full name, but I could add a link if you think it's necessary. For the short citations I've used 'Caernarvonshire: East' rather than 'RCAHMW (1956)' to avoid multiple sources with the name 'RCAHMW'. Although it's inconsistent I'd argue it's better for the reader. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Final article in the series about logistics in north west Europe. This one takes into account reviewer comments on previous articles in the series. It follows operations closely, and incorporates recent scholarship. Hawkeye7(discuss)10:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"This was resented by the former, who considered that they favored COMZ" - a bit confused by the wording here - is this trying to say that the service chiefs favored COMZ, or that they felt like the system in place favored COMZ over them?
I am trying to say that the service chiefs of the armies and army groups thought that ETOUSA favored COMZ (ie themselves). Re-worded in an attempt to make this clearer. Hawkeye7(discuss)05:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The Continental Advance Section (CONAD) and the Delta Base Section then came directly under COMZ" - I think it would be worthwhile to gloss what exactly these organizations were and what their functions were
"Henceforth, COMZ consisted of the two advance sections (ADSEC and CONAD)" - first reference to ADSEC, at least by this name, and while it's fairly obvious the purpose of this formation, the role ADSEC has to play in this (north or south or central?) is unclear
Check the pagination for the paragraph starting with "The ETO Chief Engineer, Major General Cecil R. Moore, held a meeting of the chief engineers of the major headquarters in October 1944"; I'm finding at least some of that information on p. 409 as well as the cited page range
"but it was not open until 18:50. " - this isn't really meaningful without an indication of how much delay this actually caused
No delay, but the earlier opening of the Alexander patch Bridge made it unnecessary. Added words to this effect to make this point clearer. Hawkeye7(discuss)03:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did find it informative - I'd always heard that it was very much a shoestring operation, which it turns it wasn't at all in this stage. Was not surprised to learn about the large numbers of rear echelon support troops; grandpa had been in the military police in in Europe during the last few months of the war and never got close to the front line. Hog FarmTalk16:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a very good range of relevant images, including maps and contemporary photographs. The inclusion of the graph from Dunham is particularly noteworthy.
All the images have appropriate captions, some of which include relevant wikilinks.
All images have appropriate public domain tags. The majority are works of a US Army soldiers or US Government employees, taken or made as part of that person's official duties. One (US Army mechanized forces cross the Rhine River on the Alexander Patch Heavy Pontoon Bridge.tif) is stated to be the work of a member of the US Navy employee, and is held at the National Archives. The copyright notices note that, as these are works of the US federal government, they are in the public domain in the United States.
Unfortunately some of the links in the descriptions are dead (for example in M26 pontoon ferry remagen.jpg). I do not believe this impacts the verifiable nature of the images, but am happy to take guidance.
Just a comment here there's a sandwich between "File:2nd Infantry Division artillery fires a 25-pounder.jpg" and "File:2d Armored Division tanks cross the Roer into Juelich.png". Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's great to see an article on this topic up for an A-class review. I have the following comments:
"American logistics in the Western Allied Invasion of Germany supported the American operation" - didn't the Americans also provide logistical support for the French? I'd suggest tweaking this to note that it's about logistics for the American effort.
"Meanwhile, the New York Port of Embarkation (NYPE) began shipping the new M26 Pershing tank to the ETO in January 1945" - my understanding is that only small numbers were sent (around 50?)
The 'Personnel problems' section could cover the dysfunctional arrangements for replacement personnel - especially the notorious individual replacement system and frequently sending recovered wounded soldiers back to general depots rather than their old units. There's a general consensus that this made the US Army's manpower problems worse, as the replacements lacked training and cohesion with their units and were often killed or wounded within days as a result. From memory, the situation was improved somewhat over 1945 (some divisions established holding units for replacements and posted them in groups rather than send them forward individually to units in the front line, for instance).
I did not want to get too deep into this subject, as it could warrant an article in its own right, and goes beyond logistic support. I have added two more paragraphs covering what your points. Hawkeye7(discuss)00:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Organization changes' section is a bit hard to follow given that no previous mention seems to have been made of the various administrative districts. I'd suggest adding some material on them earlier.
It would be good to include a summary of the nature of the Central Europe campaign - e.g. the US Army units generally moved quickly as German resistance collapsed, but there was hard fighting in many locations that continued until almost the end of the war.
How the US Army looked after the huge number of POWs it took could be covered, not least as this is somewhat controversial (largely due to the wrong-headed 'other losses' claims that the Americans behaved like the Germans did). Nick-D (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"five railway bridges over the Rhine supported the final American advance beyond the Rhine and into the heart of Germany." Optional: delete the second mention of "the Rhine and".
"The river was crossed and bridged". Is it known when this occurred?
Y The first crossing was made by First Army at Remagen on 7 March 1945; the last on 26 March. The first bridge, a treadway, was erected at Remagen on 10 March; the last, a railway bridge, on 8 May. Hawkeye7(discuss)21:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"By 8 May railheads had been". Perhaps 'By 8 May, when the war in Europe ended, railheads had been'?
"The Liège area was chosen for its accessibility by rail and barge via the Meuse." might read better as 'The Liège area was chosen for its accessibility by rail, and by barge via the Meuse.'
Comment: Wikipedia uses Operation Plunder for the Rhine crossings, but my sources use it only for Montgomery's 21st Army Group crossing in the north. (eg MacDonald, pp. 297, 497) Hawkeye7(discuss)21:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The Chief of Staff of the United States Army, General of the Army George C. Marshall, took cognisance of the fact that the Soviet Union was doing most of the fighting, and decided that the size of the army could be reduced. The original plans for a large army were scaled back to one of 90 divisions." Both of these are undated. A reader is left to assume that it was during the period the article covers, which I doubt is what you mean.
"1,535,600 combat service and support units". 1. Just checking whether there should be a comma between combat and service? 2. "1,535,600 ... units"? Impressive.
Y No, but its seems to have gotten muddled. Changed to "On 31 December 1944, ETOUSA had 52 divisions and 1,392,100 troops in combat support and service units. The theater had an authorized strength of 1,535,600 in combat support and service units, and it was planned to increase the number of divisions in the ETO to 61. Hawkeye7(discuss)23:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"scaled back to one of 90 divisions ... Limiting the U.S. Army to 89 divisions"?
Y Made 89 for consistency; 90 were formed but the 2nd Cavalry Division was broken up and its African-American personnel used as truck drivers. All served overseas and all but the 13th Airborne Division (in Europe) and the 98th Infantry Division (in the Pacific) saw action. Among the nine divisions rushed to Europe in the wake of the Ardennes offensive (all that remained in the United States) were four originally scheduled for the Pacific, including the 71st Infantry Division, which was specially trained in jungle warfare. Hawkeye7(discuss)23:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"cold injury". It may be worth expanding this to 'cold weather injury', to avoid confusion with cold or cold.
"Sixty percent of their personnel were to be given three weeks' refresher training and released into the replacement stream." 1. Do we need the "to be", which changes the tense? 2. When was this decision made and/or when did the activity happen?
"divert 19,000 infantry replacements scheduled for shipment in May to the Pacific." This could be read as they were diverted from the Pacific Theater, where they were originally bound, and which I assume is not what you mean.
"To conserve stocks of M2 treadway bridging, the Ninth Army engineers planned to use M1 treadway bridging for ..." Perhaps insert 'the narrower' appropriately, so a reader knows why this is happening?
"there were 5,500,000 long tons (5,600,000 t) of supplies on the continent, of which 700,000 long tons (710,000 t)." And there the sentence ends. The drama!
"Plans called for the repair of 94,000,000 items of clothing". They planned to repair 94,000,000 items of clothing! Seriously? By conscripting 5,000,000 French seamstresses I assume.
The discussion above 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.
A bunch of ammo got burned off, but unexpectedly light casualties for a running fight of nine hours that took place over 12 or 15 miles of ground. A bunch of fighting in the woods in the Ozark Mountains, with the Confederates armed with junk cannons and shotguns - fairly standard Trans-Mississippi warfare. Hog FarmTalk04:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't normally even look at articles on the American Civil War, and this article is good example of why. It is a rollicking yarn though, well-researched and generally well-written. Some comments to prove that I read it:
One of those maps of the US showing where Arkansas is might be helpful
I've added one of those
"slavery chief among them" Well yes, but not helpful to a non-American reader (who might have stumbled across the site). Instead of just "slavery" I would say "the desire to preserve the institution of slavery in the United States" (No need for the comma before "as" btw)
Done
"newly elected President" Lincoln was elected president in November 1860; so this was five months before. But he had only assumed office on 4 March.
Switched to "newly inaugurated"
Is Federal capitalised or not?
Depends on the context. For "federal government", the answer is generally no, but it's often capitalized when ACW writers use it as an alternative to "Union"
"Hindman took command" Hindman has not been introduced year.
He's introduced now
"rebuilt Confederate strength in the region" Not sure what is meant here.
Rephrased
"strict and sometimes extralegal methods" Or here. (But I note that a quarter of the civilians were slaves.)
I've generally rewritten this to make it clearer and better indicate who was unhappy with it (although I doubt the slaves were too happy with Hindman, either, because he was working them like rented mules on CSA building projects)
"he was removed of district command" Suggest "from". And by whom?
Rephrased and clarified
"Hindman retained a field command, and pushed his forces back into southwestern Missouri" Um, you don't push things back. At least not your own forces.
Rephrased
"Hindman saw an opportunity in the Union positioning" I would stick to "federal", which has been used up to this point.
Done. Old habits die hard
Cane Hill isn't marked on the map. A better map would be appreciated if you have one.
It is, as 'Boonsboro' (see the parenthetical explanation for the dual name in the article). The old version of the map was cropped specifically for the Battle of Van Buren article, so I've made a new crop that focuses more on the locations relevant for this article
" believing himself abandoned by Schofield, Blunt decided to go on the offensive" Yes, that makes perfect sense: attack when you are abandoned and outnumbered. (You haven't said how many men Blunt had.)
I've indicate Blunt's strength and have elaborated a bit on his mindset
"Blunt waited for a supply train to arrive" I'm guessing this was a wagon train and not a choo choo, but other readers might not
I've rephrased this
"Blunt's men would have plentiful ammunition" Suggest "had" instead of "would have"
Done
"The Federals also had a numerical advantage in artillery" Do we have any idea how many guns each side had?
I remember the sources not strictly agreeing on this, so I'll need to take another look at this
The sources generally agree on a ratio of 30:6, so I've added that.
"The Federals cavalry's horses were also in better condition than those of the Confederates, and the Confederates were also inadequately uniformed" repeated "also" (I would drop them both)
No, that's Hiram Bledsoe's Missouri Battery. Joseph Bledsoe's was later known as Collins's Missouri Battery and would probably be under that title when created per wiki article naming conventions, so PM67 had me move Hiram Bledsoe's to that title in the GA review. The O'Flaherty source in the further reading is known to confuse the two on occasion.
"Seeing the Federal building" Sounds like a structure
Rephrased
"Scott and Burgess compare the outcome of the battle of a hung jury" Is "to a hung jury" meant?
Rephrased
"Missouri and northwestern Arkansas remained in Federal control." Suggest "under Federal control".
"Confederate troops led by Colonel Charles A. Carroll laid an ambush" No link?
No; I don't think Carroll is notable. He's not any of the people at Charles Carroll.
"for a group of supply wagons to arrive; logistics was difficult in the Ozark Mountains" This is part doesn't feel right?
I've clarified this (and got a reference error in the process)
"most of the Confederate cannon were obsolescent" --> "most of the Confederate cannons were obsolescent" cannon as plural is mostly a British way of saying.
Have made the change here and in several other places in the article
"early on the morning of November 28 that Blunt's" --> "early on the morning of November 28, that Blunt's"
Done
"encounter Shelby's next prepared line.[53][52]" re-order the refs?
Swapped
"Herron's men arrived in the area on the morning of December 7. The night before, Hindman had learned of Herron's approach, and decided to make a stand near Prairie Grove, instead of attacking Blunt. On the morning of December 7," Maybe have this part a bit chronocally?
Have rewritten this section
I have a feeling I miss an image in the bottem part of the battle section or the aftermath.
Have added an image of the fighting at Prairie Grove to the last section
Does fn 79 point to the correct place? I think it is being redirected.
It's an old, now-dead, PDF from 2013. Not seeing other RS really comment on this, so have removed this minor item outright. Hog FarmTalk03:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Battle of Cane Hill was fought during the American Civil War on November 28, 1862, in northwestern Arkansas, near the town of Cane Hill.
Was fought betwen whom?
Done
Federal troops under Brigadier General James G. Blunt had entered northwestern Arkansas, and Major General Thomas Hindman of the Confederate Army sent a force under Brigadier General John S. Marmaduke to Cane Hill to collect supplies, in the opening stages of a campaign in which Hindman hoped to catch Blunt's command while it was isolated from the rest of the Federal Army of the Frontier, which was near Springfield, Missouri.
This sentence contains about 70 words?
Split sentence
After MacDonald's defeat, Marmaduke returned to the Cane Hill area with his force.
Don't recall reading that Marmaduke left?
Good catch; corrected
Cloud's men led the Federal advance, which made contact with Colonel Joseph O. Shelby's Confederate troopers on the morning of November 28. -> Replace comma which with "that"
I'm not 100% for sure this is the best phrasing - it would almost imply that there was a separate Federal advance that didn't run into Shelby's people. I'm open to any suggestions though
<>"Wich vs. that" - Here is my understanding of the applicable rule: The clause that comes after the word “which” or “that” is the determining factor in deciding the one to use. If the clause is essential to the meaning of the sentence, you use “that.” If you could drop the clause and leave the meaning of the sentence intact, use “which.”. -> It's your call! Pendright (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have gone with an intermediate change that avoids both which and that
While the fighting was inconclusive, Hindman withdrew from the field and the Federals retained control of Missouri and northwestern Arkansas.
While the "outcome" of the fighting was inconclusive
Done
Baciground:
In December 1860, the state of South Carolina seceded from the United States as a result of several disagreements with the federal government, [chief among them was] the desire to preserve the institution of slavery in the United States chief among them. -> See the suggested changes
Done
The American Civil War began on April 12, when Confederate troops bombarded Fort Sumter.
It was the South Carolina militia who fired on the fort because the commander of the fort woulld not sutrmeter when requested to do so?
The SC militia vs. CSA is a degree of splitting hairs that isn't followed by most sources and isn't really worth getting into here. The SC troops were under command of a CSA general (Beauregard) who was. See for instance Battle Cry of Freedom (book) p. 273 The Confederates knew that help was about to arrive, so they opened fire on April 12 at 4:30 a.m. and David J. Eicher's The Longest Night p. 39 During the afternoon the Confederate bombardment of Sumter continued without pause .... Both of these are highly-respected modern single-volume treatments of the war.
Fighting occurred to the north in Missouri during 1861.[4]
Quantify the fighting - some, etc.
went with "some"
In March 1862, Federal forces commanded by Brigadier General Samuel R. Curtis defeated a Confederate army commanded by Major General Earl Van Dorn in the Battle of Pea Ridge [fought] in northwestern Arkansas.[5] -> see the suggested addition.
Done
Curtis , who now commanded the Department of Missouri, formed the Army of the Frontier [that] , which was commanded by Brigadier General John M. Schofield. -> See the above suggested changes
Have made the which --> that change, but I suspect that "who now commanded the Department of Missouri" is an appositive that needs to be set off by commas on both ends. I may be wrong though.
By the end of October, the Confederates had been driven back, and Schofield had one division, commanded by Brigadier General James G. Blunt, stationed in Benton County, Arkansas.
He [Hindman] decided to push a cavalry force into the Cane Hill[15] (which was also known as Boonsboro)[16] area to distract Blunt, and [he would] then move the rest of his force in to the rear of Blunt's force and defeat the Federal division before reinforcements from Springfield could arrive.[15]
AKA should probably be in the lead too?
Good idea, added
Suggest the above changes
Have implemented these
Marmaduke had planned a strike against a Federal position at [the] Elkhorn Tavern, but [he] learned early on the morning of November 28 , that Blunt's forces were advancing up the Line Road, so the Elkhorn Tavern movement was cancelled. -> Suggest the above changes
Have made the latter two, but it is standard practice in sources discussing Elkhorn Tavern to refer to it as "Elkhorn Tavern" without the definite article
After having made it to about 0.5 miles (0.80 km) from the Confederate position without resistance,[32] the Kansans encountered Shelby's scouts, who withdrew to the main Confederate camp after a brief exchange of fire.
Drop the comma after scouts
Removed
Both sides' batteries fired upon each for about an hour, with little effect.[36]
Drop the comma after hour
Done
Carroll had about 400 men (less than one quarter of his brigade's strength on paper), and two mountain howitzers , which [that] were positioned on the Confederate right.[44] -> See the above suggested changes
Done
At least s [S]ome of Carroll's men were armed only with shotguns, and after firing a few volleys with little effect, Carroll's force withdrew.[44] -> Suggest the above changes
Have made the latter change; Shea's phrasing leaves open the possibility that all of Carroll's people were armed with shotguns, so I'd rather keep the uncertainty at the beginning of the sentence
By this time , it was around noon, and the fighting was shifting to the south toward Newburg,[44] which is now known as Clyde.[47] -> See the above suggested changes
Done
The eminence was about 400 feet (120 m) higher than the terrain around it.[51]
Could sustitute eminence for a more conventional word
Done
Marmaduke decided to make a stand at Reed's Mountain, deploying Shelby and MacDonald in a forward line, with Carroll's men further up the mountain.
Drop the comma after forwqard line
Done
At around 5:00 pm, the pursuit reached a house owned by John Morrow, where the Confederate retreat turned to the south.
Drop the comma after Morrow
Done
When Blunt [and] at the 6th Kansas Cavalry reached the Confederate ambuscade, the Confederate cavalrymen opened fire , throwing the Federal troops into confusion. -> See the above suggested changes
both made
Both Shea and Scott and Burgess take the position that the Confederates did present a flag of truce at the end of the battle as a ruse to give the battered Confederate forces time to break contact and leave the area.[64][65]
"both" meams "two people"?
Hmmm. I was trying to use "Scott and Burgess" as a singular item as it's not obvious from the journal article which part is from which author. Any ideas on rephrasing this? I'm struggling to come up with something that both fixes this issue and isn't clunky.
<>In hinsight, I think you are correct. Could change the second and to "along with"? Pendright (talk)
Oates attributes the low casualty totals to Marmaduke's tactics, suggesting that if Marmaduke had attempted to fight a decisive defensive battle, that his command would probably have been completely wrecked.[67]
Drop the comma after battle
Done
After the fighting ended, Blunt withdrew his forces to Cane Hill, which [and it] became a [the] base of operations for his division.-> See the above suggested changes
Done
On December 3, Hindman moved his army north from Van Buren to attack Blunt; the day before, Blunt had suspected that the Confederates were going to be on the move, and [he] ordered the two divisions at Springfield to join him, while he took up defensive positions near Cane Hill. -> suggest the above changes
Done
On December 6 , Hindman learned of Herron's approach, and [he] decided to confront Herron first instead of Blunt. -> Suggest the above changes
done
A portion of the battlefield, about 5,750 acres (2,330 ha), was [has been] listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1994 as the Cane Hill Battlefield.[78] -> Suggest the above change
I'm not sure about this one - I don't know that it's grammatical to say "has been listed [...] in 1994" in this context
<>"Was" vs. "has been" - Here is the rational behind the useage as I understand it: Was is the past tense form of the phrase “to be” and is used to describe events that happened at a specific point in the past. On the other hand, “has been” is a verb form that is used to talk about an ongoing event or state of being that started in the past and is still happening. -> It's your call! Pendright (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll stay with "was" here, as I don't have a source to indicate that the acreage has been constant throughout that entire time. Hog FarmTalk23:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pendright: - Thanks for your helpful review! I've got a few grammar queries above, one where I'm struggling to come up with a good fix to an issue, and then replies on the Elkhorn Tavern and SC militia points. Prose problems and personal confusion on grammar and comma use are unfortunately part of my writing and talking; I've lived in Missouri for most of my life and proper English usage isn't exactly something that is common around here. Hog FarmTalk03:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I"ve responsed to each of your queries above. Ping me if you have any questions. BTW, a fundamental difference between casual speech and writing, I've read, is that speech is spontaneous whereas writing is planned. In any case, each of us has our strengths and weakness. Regards! Pendright (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
At long last, my second submission for A-Class of the US Army's many posts in the vast state of Texas. In a time and place with a lot of bad jobs and offices, Fort Phantom Hill was maybe the worst. Isolated, barren, and abundant in nothing but boredom, it was quickly abandoned, unfortunately setting a tone for Jones County, Texas. This is another National Register property, too, and a rather unique one, too. A dozen chimneys and tree stone buildings in the middle of nowhere, on a ghost hill. Hope you all enjoy. –♠Vamí_IV†♠18:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chronology slightly confusing. Why does the article describe the army building Fort Phantom Hill in paragraph 2 and then go through this again in more detail in paragraph 3? Would make more sense to remove the list of second line forts and move straight from identifying the Clear Fork location to Belknap/Smith turning up and ordering construction
I am confused. Paragraph two of the article is context about the line of forts to which Phantom Hill belonged. –♠Vamí_IV†♠01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"assigned command of the area by the time he assumed command of the Department of Texas on September 16, 1851" this isn't the most clear of sentences. Considering we have a date for Smith ordering the construction, there's no harm in saying "On November 3, 1851, General PFS, in command of the Department of Texas, ordered..." or something similar
Could be made clearer in main text that Camp on the Clear Fork of the Brazos and Fort Phantom Hill are the same thing (if I'm reading note a correctly)
"creation of a crude road to Fort Chadbourne" a direction or similar would be useful here, all dependant on whether you agree with my previous comment about introducing the second line forts!
"until February 1852" could be clearer as to whether they stop attempting in February 1852 or else
Source is unclear; states, "Smith's choice of the site [...] was not met with great enthusiasm by the officers of the Fifth Infantry, and until February 1852, they entertained some hopes it would be moved...". Could be OR on my part to render this as "until February 1852 they asked for the fort's abandonment". Thoughts? –♠Vamí_IV†♠01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I read these initial sections I found it disconcerting to not be informed of any of the architecture/structure of the fort. Believe it would be much more useful to have the grounds and architecture split up as necessary between the "Use as permanent garrison" and "Preservation" sections
I've added a detail about the fort's architecture to pad out the regular section and better tie the whole article together. –♠Vamí_IV†♠22:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The fort was ordered abandoned" do we know by who?
No; I assume the order was issued by the commander of the Department of Texas, but none of my sources state this. They just say that the army left on 6 April 1854. –♠Vamí_IV†♠01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"travelers through Texas" I think we can assume the travellers are going through Texas without stating the obvious!
What's the "2nd Cavalry Regiment"? Our article says it was still called the 2nd Dragoons in 1856
Oops. I uncritically lifted that name from Wright when I had previously, correctly, labeled that unit as the 2nd Dragoons. –♠Vamí_IV†♠01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence beginning "Major General David E. Twiggs..." little confused here; Twiggs, according to our article, eventually becomes a Confederate. Why is he surrendering equipment etc and abandoning the state, and to who?
Ah. Twiggs was surrendering the Federal garrisons and their inventories to the Confederates, specifically the secessionist government of Texas. Because he himself was sympathetic to the Confederacy, he was commissioned a general in the CSA's army and then almost immediately died of illness. –♠Vamí_IV†♠01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you stopped giving soldiers their ranks suddenly? McCulloch, Barry, etc
Is there a more precise date for the departure of McCulloch's troops and the arrival of the Frontier Regiment?
No, unfortunately, not with the sources I presently have. That said, Frontier Defense in the Civil War: Texas' Rangers and Rebels may have something. I'll look tonight or tomorrow. –♠Vamí_IV†♠01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"heralding its defeat" there is no other "it" in this paragraph so far, so one assumes the federal government has just been defeated because Confederate forces are surrendering to it!
What is a marker commemorating the fort doing in the grounds of Jones County Courthouse? What's the connection?
I have no idea. Were I to guess, somebody probably thought it would be more visible at the courthouse than at the ruins in the middle of nowhere. –♠Vamí_IV†♠01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Were there any defensive structures/fortifications?
No. Forts in Texas were designed as cantonments, without actual fortifications. I would have added this if I had or could remember a source describing the military architecture of Phantom Hill. –♠Vamí_IV†♠01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This 1913 article from The Houston Post mentions a B. Paisley as the then-owner of the site who actually lived there with his family. He served the roving journalist who the wrote the article dinner in the old officer's house, which was used as his kitchen, and also used another old structure as a stable. These 1918 and 1919 news items reference a Fort Phantom Hill Oil Company conducting exploratory drilling operations in the area. Mentions of oil drilling drop off sharply by 1920 per newspapers.com. Not sure exactly what to make of all this, but it seems the site wasn't totally abandoned after 1900. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not offering a full support since I don't feel familiar enough with this subject, but I'm not opposing the nom. I just wanted to note something which needed clarification and I am satisfied that it has been handled. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:PAGERANGE requires the full page numbers be used for both the first and last pages. While not relevant to this review, I'll note that it requires the same for year ranges.
Heads up, I may add American Forts: Architectural Form and Function as a reference for context and the architecture/layout of the fort. I'll also confer with an essay in the South West Quarterly Review about US military architecture in Texas in the time period and see if, or how much, could be added to the article with both sources. I'll update here if/when I add more material. –♠Vamí_IV†♠03:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The United States Army began to establish outposts and construct roads in Texas during the war to protect and facilitate white settlements and traffic in the state and its border with Mexico." I think you're trying to say too much in one sentence. What is meant by "protect and facilitate ... traffic in the state"?
"by a lack of usable wood and water" Aren't we near a river?
Yes, but the key word is "usable". Also, no, not really. The Army thought there was a river because Marcy passed through the area following a time of abnormally high rainfall. –♠Vamí_IV†♠19:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay. This happened in Australia a lot. An abiding scene from Australian history is Charles Sturt setting out to explore what he thought was an inland sea (but which we now know to be Lake Eyre). When he came back, the lake had shrunk considerably. He missed it completely, and wound up wandering what we now call Sturt's Stony Desert with a row boat. Hawkeye7(discuss)09:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Pestilence caused by the poor supply of food and water also plagued the garrison." What diseases are we talking about here? The only ones I am aware of due to lack of food is malnutrition.
After its final abandonment in 1875, a town was established at Fort Phantom Hill that , after flourish[ed] ing in the 1870s , [but] ceased to exist by 1900.
To protect those migrants, the US Army established a line of forts running for 800 miles (1,300 km) from Fort Worth in the northeast to Fort Duncan in the southwest in 1848–49 and then another, 200 miles (320 km) west, from 1850 to 1852.
See if you can live with these changes:
To protect these migrants, the US Army established a line of forts running for 800 miles (1,300 km) from Fort Worth, in the northeast, to Fort Duncan, in the southwest, in 1848–49 and then another 200 miles (320 km) west during 1850 to 1852.
The forts of that line – Belknap, Chadbourne, Clark, Davis, Mason, McKavett, Phantom Hill, Stockton, and Terrett – were established in the early 1850s at places Marcy recommended.
On November 3, General Persifor Frazer Smith, commander of the Department of Texas,[18] ordered that an outpost be created upon the "Phantom Hill" overlooking the Clear Fork,[19] 20 mi (32 km) from Pecan Bayou.[20]
Construction of Fort Phantom Hill began immediately and lasted until June 1852, and was followed by the creation of a crude road to Fort Chadbourne, to the southwest.[22]
Construction and basic life at the fort was complicated by a lack of usable wood and water—which the garrison could not abate even by digging an 80-foot (24 m) well[23][24]—and of game and fertile soil in the area.
Suggest breaking this sentence into two sentences along these or similar lines -> Construction and basic life at the fort were complicated by "the" lack of usable wood and water, game, and fertile soil in the area. The garrison could not abate the water problem even by digging an 80-foot (24 m) well.
Before being razed, the fort buildings consisted of jacales with the exception of the officers' quarters, which were built of timber, and the magazine, guardhouse, and commissary, which were built of stone.[27][28]
After initially ignoring Texans' concerns about indigenous raiding in favor of reoccupying pre-war installations along the border with Mexico, the US Army returned to the frontier and began expanding its presence there in 1866–67.[45][46]
@Vami IV: Thank you for your responses to my comments, however, I do have some issues with the one that follows:
The United States defeated Mexico, and in the treaty that ended the war in 1848 purchased and annexed what is presently the Southwestern United States.
Annex means to "add territory to one's own territory by appropriation", so it is inacturate to say it was purchased.
Here is one way to rephrase the sentence -> The United States defeated Mexico, and in the treaty that ended the war in 1848 the U.S. was allowed to retain the territory that it had annexed but, in turn, had to pay Mexico 15-million dollars for what is presently the Southwestern United States. Pendright (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The United States defeated Mexico, and in the treaty that ended the war in 1848 annexed what is presently the Southwestern United States in exchange for $15 million (equivalent to $507 million in 2022[4]).[5]
The discussion above 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.
One of my 2020 GAs I just gave a thorough revamping too. The battle itself isn't much to write home about - a few ironclads shoot up a couple forts, the forts shoot back and beat up three of the ironclads pretty good. The context of the battle is one of the most important events in American military history: Grant's famed crossing of the Mississippi River. The original plan had been to cross at Grand Gulf, but the inability of the ironclads to take out the fortifications led Grant to cross at Bruinsburg instead. Hog FarmTalk05:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, a really nice article that was enjoyable to read. A few small niggles, nothing more:
"..between the Confederate defenders and the Union Navy ships the sloop-of-war USS Hartford and the schooner USS Albatross." I found this a little difficult to keep track of on the first read. Maybe split the sentence a little more, something like "..between the Confederate defenders and two Union Navy ships: the sloop-of-war USS Hartford and the schooner USS Albatross."
Have rephrased, I think I had meant to write "two Union navy ships" instead of "the Union Navy ships"
"..with the Union having.." Avoid the noun plus -ing construction.
Done
"..which saw Union warships and transports loaded with infantry move up the Yazoo River on April 29, skirmish with Confederate forces the next two days." This is either missing a word, or should be "skirmishing".
It looks like Nick-D has fixed this
"The stronger was known as Fort Cobun, and the other bore the name Fort Wade." "bore the name" seems a bit laborious, and I think could just be cut: "The stronger was known as Fort Cobun, and the other as Fort Wade."
Done
"..a 40-foot (12 m)tall bluff.." Missing a space. I should have just sorted this myself, but...
Fixed
"..was located 0.75 miles (1.21 km) downriver.." Unless we know it is really this precise, drop the precision of the conversion to one decimal place.
Rounded off
"..and 0.25 miles (0.40 km) away from it.." Same here.
Rounded off
"..suggested that the army march further south, with the navy's ironclad warships to cover.." Add a comma after "warships".
Okay, it depends on the meaning of the sentence. Is the army marching south to cover the movement of the transports, or are the navy's ironclad warships covering the movement of the transports? If the first, it needs the comma. If the latter, it would suggest making it slightly clearer, something like "..accompanied by the navy's ironclad warships to cover the movement of the transports."Harrias(he/him) •talk07:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Grammatically it looks fine to me and seems to convey the meaning you want it to. However, I agree with Harrias that "with" is a bit futsy. Their suggestion seems good. Possibly tweaked to end '... its transports' in order to tie the transports to the army? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The naval forces also had the advantage in size of cannon.." Is there any detail on this?
Clarified
"..while the other three focused on Fort Cobun." Maybe add "remained" before "focused"?
Done
"However, Fort Cobun fought on." Not keen on this very short sentence. Maybe blend it into the end of the subsequent sentence: "The four Union vessels that had silenced Fort Wade moved upriver to face the remaining Confederate fort, which fought on."
Rephrased the sentence out of existence; that's probably a relic of the worse-written 2020 version
"warhips" Typo.
Ugh. Fixed
"Port lost one man in the affair.." Should this be "Porter"?
Corrected
Out of interest, Fort Wade was presumably named after its commander, Colonel William F. Wade. Do we know whether Fort Cobun was commanded by a Colonel (or otherwise) Cobun?
I haven't seen any references to a Cobun being involved in the battle, and cannot figure out where the name is coming from. Bearss, Shea & Winschel, Ballard, Miller, and even Wright's archaeological report don't say anything, and general sourcing isn't bringing it up. Not even the source I usually turn to in sorting out obscure Mississippi basin place names has anything. Hog FarmTalk02:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Vicksburg campaign is such an interesting and under-remembered part of the US Civil War, so it's great to see high quality articles on it. I have the following comments:
The first para of the lead doesn't really establish the significance of crossing the Mississippi
I've fleshed out the first paragraph of the lead a bit to better establish this
The sentence starting with 'Early in the American Civil War' would benefit from being split into two sentences
Done
"Grand Gulf, Mississippi, which was located along the Mississippi River" - I've suggest giving its location relative to Vicksburg
I've stated it was to the south of Vicksburg, can hunt in the sources for a distance in miles if desired.
"By the next morning, 24,000 Union soldiers had crossed the river without opposition in an amphibious operation that would not be exceeded in size in American military history until the Normandy landings" - this seems unlikely given the large size of the Operation Torch landings in 1942 Nick-D (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: Miller p. 365 has It was the largest amphibious landing in American history until D-Day, June 6, 1944 (without an obviously-placed footnote for that specific claim) Kennedy p. 158 has the much weaker In one of the America's largest amphibious operations prior to World War II, the 24,000 men [...] Bearss p. 346 calls it the greatest amphibious operation in American history up to that time but doesn't make any claims about World War II. It looks like Housecarlmerged the claim over from the Vicksburg campaign article, where it is apparently pulled from this NPS page with no byline. Given that the two most thorough-going historians I've checked on this - Ballard and Bearss - don't make such a claim. Gonna apply the Sagan standard here and remove the claim as I don't think a NPS piece with no footnotes or byline or an unfootnoted claim in Miller are enough to support that claim. Hog FarmTalk02:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Those changes all look good, and I'm pleased to support the nomination. Sorry about my slow response here. Nick-D (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"File:Vicksburg Campaign April-July 1863.pdf". What is the source of the information shown in this image?
No clue where Hal Jespersen got his info from, but it correlates very well to a map in Miller, with the only differences being Miller's map doesn't show Walker's attack, the date for Milliken's Bend, give the crossing dates of the Mississippi River, and has Grand Gulf evacuated on May 2 instead of May 3. The latter points are sourced well enough in the article and I can find a map in Shea & Winschel or somewhere that covers the Milliken's Bend ancillary movements if you'd like. Thoughts? Hog FarmTalk02:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think adding Miller as the main source with a note that Shea and Winschel are relied on for the Milliken's Bend stuff should do it.
@Gog the Mild: - turns out that Shea & Winschel don't have the map I thought they did have. Have checked 7 books and poked around online and can't find a good map of Walker's approach to Milliken's Bend. Because the file is a PDF, I can't just crop that part out. Would it be acceptable for me to provide a page range for a chunk of text describing Walker's general approach to Milliken's Bend? Hog FarmTalk03:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first map creates a sandwich with the infobox.
Have moved images around, which resolves the issue, at least on my screen)
"File:Grand Gulf Battlefield Mississippi.jpg". Any further information on the source for this? "National Park Service" is a little broad for anyone wishing to verify it.
I have no clue. I cannot find the file anywhere, searching for elements of the file's text description (which read like they're pulled from the NPS document this thing came from) brings up nothing. I've removed the file - it's not super useful due to drastic changes in the river course, and without a real source (and the image appearing to have been made by overlaying a topographic map in Microsoft Paint), I don't think the pros outweight the cons with it. Hog FarmTalk00:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References and References (?) consistently formatted
While I'm not aware of any specific issues in Konstam's book, I did note some mistakes in another book on British battleships of WW2 that he wrote. So I don't think that he's highly reliable. I'd suggest that you find another source to replace him.
@Sturmvogel 66: - I've fixed the duplicate header name and have removed Konstam outright. Konstam had been added several years ago to support that the Union ships were ironclads, but that's supported in other ways now, so Konstam was no longer necessary. Hog FarmTalk02:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the Chickasaw Bayou. A Union attack on December 29" --> "the Chickasaw Bayou. A Union attack on December 29,"
Done
"a skirmish occurred on March 19 between the Confederate" --> "a skirmish occurred on March 19, between the Confederate"
Done
"at Grand Gulf: two 8-inch pieces and three 32-pounder rifled cannon" No conversion for the inches? Also British plural cannon here?
Switched to "cannons", but there's not necessarily consensus to convert the -inch adjective to metric because it's the proper name of the gun
"Francis Cockrell across the river on April 4 to counter" --> "Francis Cockrell across the river on April 4, to counter"
Done
"Yazoo River on April 29 and skirmish" --> "Yazoo River on April 29, and skirmish"
Done
"Two more cannon and the 1st Confederate Battalion were" British plural cannon.
Switched over
"A total of 81 cannon were carried by these vessels" Same as above.
Switched over
"the majority of the Confederate cannon were 30-pounders or smaller" Same as above.
Switched over
"The lead Union vessels opened fire at about 7:50, with Fort Cobun responding" Add am here?
Added
"On the morning of April 30, the Bruinsburg crossing began. McClernand's corps and a portion of Major General James B. McPherson's corps led the way. By the next morning, 24,000 Union soldiers had crossed the river without opposition.[51] More of McPherson's men crossed on May 1.[52] Late on April 29, expecting" Maybe make it chronocally?
Moved some stuff around
"The Siege of Vicksburg began on May 18 and ended" --> "The Siege of Vicksburg began on May 18, and ended"
@CPA-5: - I've made all of the changes, expect the 8-inch conversion. That's come up before, and there's apparently some opposition to converting the number in that context because it is the proper name of the gun. Hog FarmTalk01:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Charlemagne was a French predreadnought battleship that was thoroughly obsolete when World War I began in 1914. Aside from bombarding Ottoman fortifications in 1915, she spent the war on secondary duties. I've extensively reworked the article to incorporate newly available material and believe that it fully meets the A-class criteria. I look forward to working with reviewers who will inform me otherwise.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 11,275 displacement figure from the infobox doesn't match up to anything in the body
Ditto the 727 complement figure, given that the background gives 750 for flagship crew and 692 otherwise
Is 14,200 PS (body) or 14,500 PS (infobox) correct?
steaming range also differs between body and infobox
Infobox gives deck armor as varying between 40mm and 70mm, but the way things are phrased in the body, it seems the 40mm armor is below the 70mm deck armor, so there was no place with only 40mm of armor?
The upper 70mm deck covered the entire hull. So you'd prefer just to use the thickness(es) of the thickest deck? That's not a problem, but I've often not done it that way.
Maybe 40 mm (lower) and 70 mm (upper) or something, to make it clear that there isn't a point where only the 40 mm splinter deck is providing protection? Hog FarmTalk13:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a predreadnought, wouldn't she have been at least partially obsolete by WWI or even earlier? This seems worth mentioning if it can be supported by sources
"Her 138.4 mm guns were removed the following month" - wouldn't these have been 138.6 mm guns based on the prior description of the armament?
Sigh, I wish I'd remember to cross-reference the figures in the infobox and main body when updating articles! Thanks for looking at this. I think that I've addressed everything that you brought up above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could we get a brief note on why the French ordered the Charlemagne class of ships?
I generally save that for the class article.
It's not enough for me to holdup the review, but I hope you might reconsider on adding a brief note. That a specific ship is ordered to be built is not just a given thing, and a sentence of context wouldn't hurt, even if it is just a "The French government ordered the battleship and its sisters as part of the X naval expansion programme."
In the World War I section, Yavuz should be linked at its mention, and it should be made clear in the first paragraph that Charlemagne was operating against Ottoman forces. I don't think the average reader is going to realize without some clarification that the Yavuz, Kum Kale, Kilitbahir Castle, were Ottoman places.
Yavuz is linked in the lede and this isn't such a long article that readers will forget. Have worked in more references to the Ottomans
The battleship arrived at Bizerte on 3 April to begin a badly needed refit. "Badly needed" is something of an opinion, and it isn't exactly clear what was done during the refit which was apparently so urgently required.
Badly needed is a paraphrase from the source, but I've added the most urgent repair to better justify the characterization.
Thank you for the added context.
The footnote This is not mentioned in Caresse's detailed history of Gaulois, and may have been confused with Gaulois's collision with the battleship Bouvet on 31 January 1903. is sourced directly to Caresse, and seems like an original observation.
It seemed pretty obvious to me, but removed.
I get the common sense rationale behind explicitly noting this discrepancy in article text, but discussing things which are not mentioned in a given source, through an analysis of that source in comparison to others itself without the citing of an overarching historiographic review or comment of some sort (e.g. something like "Curiously, Caresse does not discuss any collision incident involving the Gaulois in his comprehensive studies of the battleship, in contrast to other sources." - Bob Smith, The French Navy During the Great War, p. 27), I think is still engaging in low-level WP:OR. There is theoretically an infinite amount of things we can point out are not mentioned by a given book, but without a different source making that observation itself it's impossible to fairly assign DUE weight in choosing to declare such omissions. This presents more of a risk on articles of modern socio-political controversy than the service record of a French predreadnought, but I'd prefer the whole note be removed on principle. I'll defer to @Hog Farm: and other reviewers if they think I'm splitting hairs here. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my experience with Caresse-type works, I think it's okay to simply state that Caresse's history does not mention this; those types of works are generally extremely comprehensive. I wouldn't recommend that in most cases, but there's a fairly strong expectation that if a collision of any significance occurred, then Caresse would mention it. Hog FarmTalk23:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is that the Caresse article is a detailed history of the ship and covers the other collisions that Gaulois was involved in, so I can only presume...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The battleship was initially assigned to the Northern Squadron (Escadre du Nord) and was not transferred to the Mediterranean Squadron (Escadre de la Méditerranée) until 1900.
"but" was not tramsferred
The ship was transferred later that year to the squadron assigned to prevent any interference by the Greeks with Allied operations on the Salonica front.
Since squardron is unspecified shouldn't it be "a" squardron?
Lead does not mention anything about armament, speed, or armor?
Design and description:
The ships' anti-torpedo boat defences consisted of twenty Canon de 47 mm (1.9 in) Modèle 1885 and two 37 mm (1.5 in) Maxim guns, fitted in platforms on both masts, on the superstructure, and in casemates in the hull.
defences -> sp?
Other:
armour - sp?
Construction and career
Charlemagne, was the namesake of Charlemagne, the first Holy Roman Emperor,[7] was ordered on 30 September 1893 as the name ship of the three battleships of her class.[8]
Suggest the sentence be rephrased to show Charlemagne's title after his name.
A 100 mm cartridge spontaneously ignited in a magazine on 30 December 1904, but Charlemagne suffered no damage from the incident as the magazine was quickly flooded.[16]
Any injuries or fatalities?
The divisions of the battle squadrons had been renumbered on 5 January and the 4th Division was now the 1st Division of the 2nd Battle Squadron.
and the 4th Division "became" the 1st Division
World War I:
After the French ships were ordered to be relieved by six other British battleships,[24] Bouvet struck a mine and sank almost instantly while Gaulois was hit twice, one of which opened a large hole in her hull that began to flood the ship.
Any injures or faltaliti3s?
Charlemagne was slightly damaged when her armour belt was dented when she was struck by a shell on 25 May.
armour -> sp?
They sold her to an Italian company which demolished her in Savona, Italy.[32]
The article's written in British English, so the variant spellings. And I've addressed most of the issues that you brought up, as small as they were.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You do have one pair of refs that are out of order - if you ctrl+f for reversed brackets (i.e., ][) you'll find it at "...(Division des bases navales du corps expéditionnaire d'Orient).[30][19]"
Cited sources are all of very high quality, Caresse, Jordan, Roberts, etc. are all established historians of the French Navy. Parsecboy (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
After a hiatus of (I think) at least a few years, WP:OMT is once again making an appearance at ACR (which will hopefully be more of a routine occurrence going forward!) I bring you Justice (no, not that one and only for some of you), a French pre-dreadnought battleship that saw (if monotonous) service during World War I. Actually, the ship's career before and after the war was a fair bit more interesting, being involved in a number of accidents, having an early film produced about her in 1911, and being part of a mutiny in 1919. In any event, thanks for taking the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
February 1908 commissioning date is in the infobox but not anywhere else
Think that must have been from an old version of the article - fixed
"Justice began having trouble with her main battery" - do the sources give any details on the nature of these issues?
No, unfortunately - mechanical problems of some sort, it'd be safe to assume, but I can't say what
"company with the destroyers Lansquenet " - link on Lansquenet goes to a ship list page
Good catch
"but following the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and the ensuing July Crisis prompted the fleet to remain close to port" - not sure that this is grammatical. Maybe a word missing?
Reworded
" In mid-1916, she became involved in events in Greece, being stationed in Salonika to put pressure on the Greek government" - the body doesn't seem to put this particular emphasis on Salonika over the other stationing points
Interesting article. At the risk of being pedantic/snarky, I've developed a few articles within scope of OMT to A-class over the last few years ;) I have the following non-snarky comments:
"mid-1900s" - most people will think that means the 1950s or similar
You whippersnappers!
The first sentence of the 'Design' section is over-complex
Reworded
"Tests to determine whether the main battery turrets could be modified to increase the elevation of the guns (and hence their range) proved to be impossible," - I think that there are some missing words here (e.g. what was found to be impossible? The test or the modifications?)
Fixed
It might be worth noting why the ship was completed despite being of an outdated design
It would probably be impossible to source such an explanation - Justice was launched well before work began on Dreadnought, and it would have been impossible to alter the design by that late state of construction. The cost of completing the ships was also already baked into the budgets for 1907 and 1908. Add to that the political realities of doing anything other than simply completing them as planned (what's the navy going to do, go to parliament and say "hey, we just wasted millions of francs on ships that are no good, give us more money please"). More or less every major navy finished building their last generation of pre-dreadnoughts after Dreadnought was commissioned - heck, the British completed the Lord Nelsons after Dreadnought (the real question mark is why the French continued with the Danton-class battleships, which were all laid down after Dreadnought, but that's another story for another day).
"shooting training" - 'gunnery training' seems the more common term
I don't recall now, that was more than a decade ago that I uploaded it! I agree that it doesn't appear correct - I've tweaked it. Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Instead, the navy determined that tanks...: as determined is used in the previous sentence, to avoid repetition, suggest replacing it with "found that".
Works for me
On 8 December 1915, the naval command issued orders...: what's "naval command"? The French equivalent of the Admiralty?
It's unfortunately something of a placeholder - Jordan & Caresse simply state that A directive dated 8 December 1915 established..." without telling who. It might have been the Conseil supérieur de la Marine, but I don't know for sure.
Because it relates to different technical matter compared to the rest of this section, suggest putting the stuff regarding rangefinders into its own paragraph.
Done
Construction – 1910
An exact date is given for the ship being laid down, but only month/year in infobox
Good catch
Beginning on 10 June and lasting through and July, the..: something missing here, may be "and July" should be "to July"?
Fixed
World War I
...Danton-class battleships Condorcet and Vergniaud, which took over...: Don't think the "which" should be there.
Fixed - must've forgot how I started that sentence halfway through!
...by the French naval command to withdraw...: ditto my comment from the Modifications section regarding naval command but your response there may resolve this one. I see the term is used again in the Postwar career section
Another vague placeholder - Jordan & Caresse present that a decision was made, but don't say who ordered it (though they do note that Boué de Lapeyrère wrote a letter to the naval minister in reference to the torpedoing of Jean Bart)
...launched a coup against the monarchy...: for sake of clarity, suggest "Greek monarchy"
Good idea
Postwar career
Black Sea had been designed the 2nd Squadron...: presumably "designed" should be "designated"
Good catch
...though the dreadnoughts continued.: wording not quite right here, I assume you are wanting to say the crews of the dreadnoughts continued with the mutiny.
Clarified
Justice thereafter being reduced to a training ship.: suggest replace "being" with "was".
Done
The year of breaking up needs to be added to the text here, the infobox says 1922.
The discussion above 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.
My first bio for A-Class review is a fairly straightforward one. If this goes well, I may try to take on some more complex ones. Slack was a lawyer and (briefly) politician who parlayed 16 months of experience as an O-3 equivalent in the Mexican War into being appointed a Brigadier General with the outbreak of war. Serving with a pro-Confederate militia and then later the Confederate Army itself, Slack fought in three significant battles and was shot in the hip in two of them. The second wound was fatal. Hog FarmTalk13:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a well developed article about a somewhat obscure figure. I have the following comments
"After the outbreak of the American Civil War in April 1861, Slack began to support the Confederate cause" - I'd suggest noting here that he was in favour of slavery before the war, which I presume would have predisposed him to the Confederate cause
Can Slack's father be named?
There's an considerable over-use of 'Slack' (for instance, in every sentence of the paragraph that starts with 'After his military service ended' - some other paras are similar). I'd suggest mixing this up, though use of 'he' and other phrasing. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: - Thanks for the review! I've addressed the first two and for the third have rephrased roughly 17 instances of "Slack" - hopefully the helps the issue. Hog FarmTalk17:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a little copy editing as I have gone along. Could you let me know here if you object to any of it? Thanks.
"he served as a captain in the United States Army during the Mexican-American War." It may be helpful to tell a reader when this took place.
Added
"Returning to a legal career". And again.
I don't have a clear date on this, so I've noted in the lead that his service began in 1846 and lasted for 14 months.
Is "the Missouri State Guard" referred to as "the Guard" in the sources? I note that later you refer to it as "the MSG", sometimes using both in a paragraph.
It is to some extent, but I've standardized to MSG
"further Confederate and Guard troops". I know what you mean, but I suspect that you will confuse many readers with the implication that the Missouri State Guard were not Confederate troops.
I've linked directly to Confederate States Army here, in hopes that indicates better these are two quasi-allied organizations. Historically, the fact that the Missouri State Guard was not a part of the Confederate army played a significant role in the 1861 Wilson's Creek campaign.
Ok. To my eye, 'Confederate Army and MSG troops' helps a little here, but that may just be me. Similarly with the comparable case below. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Slack transferred to the Confederate States Army". Is it known when?
Roughly
Is Slack's mother's name known?
Added
"as the legal market in Chillicothe was less crowded". Optional for ACR, this is a little clumsily phrased.
Have rephrased
"the Missouri state legislature." Definitely lower case initials?
"Despite opposing war". In general? Or just an American civil war in particular?
Clarified
"A 1927 article in the Missouri Historical Review states that Slack became a leading secessionist in the area after Fort Sumter." Why is the source for this given in line. Is there doubt or dispute over it?
This doesn't appear to be a controversial statement, in-line attribution removed.
"James S. Rains and Slack were ordered to". Any chance of a brief introduction of Rains?
Have glossed Rains's rank and commnad
Does Bearss have an ISBN and/or a publisher location?
This one's a fun one. The full text of the copyright page of the work is The Battle of Wilsons Creek by Edwin C. Bearss with battle maps by David Whitman published by George Washington Carver Birthplace District Association 1975 ARTCRAFT PRINTERS [logo identifying printer as a union shop] BOZEMAN, MONTANA It's over 1,000 miles from the George Washington Carver District to Bozeman, so I can only assume the Bozeman place is a physical printing location, not the location of the publisher. This source has been published in I think at least 4 different forms over its existence; the edition I have in particular seems to have a byzantine publishing history. No ISBN, but I've added an OCLC. Hog FarmTalk04:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Prushankin writes that this deployment bought Price time to deploy other units into line." Again, s there a reason why this fact in particular needs in line citation?
Inline attribution removed
"although Prushankin suggests that Price may not have had authorization to do this." And again.
Probably not, removed
"that included both Confederate and MSG troops." So the MSG was not considered "Confederate" even after the creation of "the Confederate government of Missouri"?
It still wasn't, at least in theory - it was still, at least in theory, fighting for the state government of Missouri, even though said state government was essentially an administrative fiction by that point. Some of the MSG troops never even actually joined the Confederate army
"Historian Ezra J. Warner writes that Slack was ..."; "Historians William L. Shea and Earl J. Hess report that ..." False title.
@Gog the Mild: - thanks for the review! Have made responses above; the only two that may be tricky are the bibliographic information for Bearss and then the general nature of the Missouri State Guard. Hog FarmTalk02:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bearss seems to have been as well as may be. I have made a comment on the MSG thing above which you may or may not wish to go with. Bur I am happy to support regardless. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
William Yarnel Slack (August 1, 1816 – March 21, 1862) was an American lawyer, politician and military officer.
Slack was also a confederate military officer
Have added a bit to highlight that to the first sentence; he's really only known because of his CSA service
After the outbreak of the American Civil War in April 1861, Slack, who had supported slavery before the war, began to support the Confederate cause.
The suceeding paragraph suggests he "supported" (not began to support) the Confederate cause:
When the Missouri State Guard was formed the next month to oppose the Union, he was appointed as a brigadier general in the Guard's 4th Division.
I've tweaked the phrasing a bit here
Along with a number of other Missouri State Guard officers, Slack transferred to the Confederate States Army, in which he commanded a brigade with the rank of colonel.
Drop comma (,) in which and replace this with "where"
done
On March 7, 1862, during the Battle of Pea Ridge, Slack suffered another wound, close to his Wilson's Creek injury.
Suggest -> suffered another wound that was close to the injury he had received at Wilson's Creek?
Done
Early life and career:
The younger Slack was educated in the Columbia area,[2] studying law under one J. B. Gordon,[3] but returned to Kentucky in 1837 to further a legal career.
to "pursue" a legal career
Changed
After returning to Columbia in 1839, he was admitted to the bar and relocated to Chillicothe,[1] where he opened a law office, as the legal market in Chillicothe was less crowded.[3]
Drop the comma after Chillicothe,
Dropped
Slack married Mary E. Woodward in 1842 and fathered two children during the 1840s.[1]
and they had two children
Done
Slack's wife died in 1858; he remarried the next year and had two more children.
and "they" also had two children
Done
What was her name?
Added
After Abraham Lincoln won the election [in 1860], Slack considered [that] secession and war [were] likely.[6]
Partially done - have phrased a little differently to avoid the close duplication of "United States". I don't know how useful a link to the 1860 election is, given that it's linked and discussed in the prior paragraph
Slack became a leading secessionist in the area after Fort Sumter.[9]
I've rephrased this sentence and moved it to before the Claiborne Jackson one
Federal forces commanded by Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon dispersed Jackson's militia in the Camp Jackson affair , which [that] ended in a bloody riot.[10]
After the events at Camp Jackson and the riot, the state legislature formed a new militia organization known as the Missouri State Guard (MSG), which was commanded by Price.
Might add Price's full name and title?
Added, but not linked (same Price as mentioned earlier)
From a base along the Chariton River, he recruited and trained soldiers for the MSG,[6] but [he] left the recruiting area in June , as Federal forces were moving into it.[14]
Suggest the above changes
Done
Sigel attacked the MSG lines, but was repulsed and driven back through Carthage itself.[10]
Drop the comma after lines or add "he" was
Dropped the comma
Wilson's Creek:
The MSG then gathered at Cowskin Prairie in McDonald County, but moved to Cassville to unite with McCulloch's command.
but "they" moved
Went with "it" instead of they because I think that's the better adjective for referring to the organization.
In early August, the combined forces of McCulloch and Price had begun an advance towards Springfield, and encamped along Wilson's Creek on August 7.[13]
Drop the comma after Springfield or add "theey" encamped
Removed the comma
Because of his wound, Slack missed the campaign associated with the Siege of Lexington,[28] but was able to resume command on October 11.[29]
but "he" was
Done
In November, a portion of the Missouri state government voted to secede, creating the Confederate government of Missouri, which functioned as a government-in-exile.[30]
A bit more of the story: Missouri quote: "With the elected governor absent from the capital and the legislators largely dispersed, the state convention was reassembled with most of its members present, save twenty who fled south with Jackson's forces. The convention declared all offices vacant and installed Hamilton Gamble as the new governor of Missouri. President Lincoln's administration immediately recognized Gamble's government as the legal Missouri government."
If it can be sourced, consider weaing a little of this into the text
I've fleshed this out a bit using another source
Price gave Slack a commission as a colonel in the Confederate army, although Price may not have had authorization to do this.
Why not?
source doesn't say, unfortunately
Pea Ridge and death:
Major General Earl Van Dorn was placed in command of Confederate forces in the Trans-Mississippi, and [he] began a campaign to retake Missouri.
Suggest the above change
Done
After driving back a Federal cavalry regiment, Slack's men encountered a stronger Federal line , [that] result[ed] ing in a brief clash of skirmishers ; during which [time] , Slack was shot.[33]
Consider the above
Partially done - I think "clash of skirmishers" is necessary here, and I'm not sure that "a stronger Federal line that resulted" works in AmEng
Skirmishers were a particular type of infantry - have linked to the proper article
Initially transported to a private home[,] east of the field, he was moved to another location 7 miles (11 km) to the east , in order to avoid capture by Federal forces.[27]
Sorry this took so long to get to. I've got one query above, and I'm not sure about one or two of the changes as noted above, but I've actioned everything else. Hog FarmTalk00:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - Google books seems to have attached the wrong cover page to the work
"Slack became a leading secession in his local area" I think you mean "secessionist"?
Fixed
Spot checks: 3a, 9, 14, 21 - okay
2a: It says that his father moved to Boone County in 1819, but not that he became a JP in that year
@Hawkeye7: - [2a] is used only to support the date of 1819, [1b] is where the JP claim is from. I don't intend to claim a date of 1819 for the JP appointment, as that can't be determined from the sources (all I have is "soon" after the move) - does the article unintentionally read like it is providing an 1819 date for that? Hog FarmTalk02:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
I'm renominating this article now that I'm back editing and won't suddenly abandon work and disappear. The man who (maybe?) made Nelson the man he was, but apart from that had quite an uneventful naval career. Has received a slight update with a new source since my last nom. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Hawkeye7
Looks good to me, but some comments to prove that I read it:
"Suckling did however have the support of considerable patronage from the powerful Walpoles" Who were they? You mentioned his great-uncle but not the other members of the family (although some appear in the final section)
I've adjusted to focus more on Walpole himself rather than the wider family
"he found it long and arduous work" I'm not sure what "long work" is.
Replaced with time-consuming
The final sentence had me wondering about the sword. Apparently it was sold in 2021 [4].
It would be a fun subject to have a look into and possibly write an article about, but the main source Swords for Sea Service is rather expensive!
Image review - Pass - It is good to see this renominated. Welcome back. An image review was completed at 12:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC) for the previous submission and there seem to be no material changes. There is a nice selection of images and all seem appropriate to the text. All state that they are in the public domain and have relevant PD tags. Pass. simongraham (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suckling was employed in the aftermath of the Capture of Belle Île in 1761 destroying French fortifications on the Île-d'Aix, and went on half pay at the end of the war in 1763.
Replace the first in with "during"
Done
Drop the comma after Île-d'Aix, or add [he] went on half pay
Done former
Early life:
Nothing is recorded of Suckling's childhood past this point apart from that he continued to live in Beccles.[2]
Do you mean Nothing is "known to have been" recorded?
Changed to "known", which is the wording the source uses
Early career:
In Newcastle Suckling saw service in the Western Approaches, the English Channel, and off Gibraltar and Lisbon, advancing to able seaman on 7 April 1741 before being promoted to midshipman on 7 September.
Second clause -> "who" is advnacing and being promoted?
Reworded
While sailing off Villefranche on 7 February 1746 he was transferred to the 80-gun ship of the line HMS Russell also as fourth lieutenant.[3][6]
Add a comma after 1746
Done
He was then on 1 November translated from Boyne into the 50-gun fourth-rate HMS Gloucester as that ship's first lieutenant, which naval historian David Syrett suggests was another appointment brought about by Suckling's patrons.[3]
Change that to "this" or "the"
Done latter
Suckling's position in Gloucester meant that he avoided the unemployment that came to many naval officers when the Royal Navy began to decommission warships in response to the end of the war.[6]
On 21 October 1757 Dreadnought was undertaking such an operation alongside two other 60-gun ships of the line, expecting to intercept a French convoy leaving Cape Français.
Suggest this or something like it -> On 21 October 1757, Dreadnought and two other 60-gun ships of the line had undertaken an operaton to intercept a French convoy leaving or which had left Cape Français?
Reworded along these lines
The three ships formed [a] line of battle with Dreadnought taking the vanguard.[1][10][13]
Add the indefinite artice "a" as indicated
Done
The French squadron, having received heavy casualties, retreated back into Cape Français.
Drop the common after squardron
Done
Suckling subsequently sailed his ship to Chatham, where she was paid off on 19 November.[10][3]
where she paid off the officers and crew?
A ship is "paid off", not the crew
<>The link says -> The term "paid off" is alternatively used in British and Commonwealth contexts, originating in the age-of-sail practice of ending an officer's commission and paying crew wages once the ship completed its voyage. Pendright (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In June Suckling's ship reinforced the British squadron that had recently captured Belle Île, and [she] was then detached in a squadron under Captain Sir Thomas Stanhope.
Suggest the above change
Done
As the Royal Navy began mobilising in the expectation of war he was given command of the 64-gun ship of the line HMS Raisonnable, which was fitting out at Chatham, on 17 November.[1][3][19]
On 26 June Suckling was also appointed senior officer for his part of the Thames Estuary, and filled most of his time with paperwork regarding topics including naval discipline and the deployment of marine detachments.[19][26]
and "he" filled most of
Changed
Comptroller of the Navy:
The Comptroller of the Navy was the head of the Navy Board, responsible for all Royal Navy warship construction and upkeep as well as troop transports and dockyards.
"he" was resoinsible for...
I believe the current wording is acceptable, I won't fight it if you demand it though!
<> For the sake of discussion, let's kick this around a bit: It appears (from the previous sentence) that "The comptroller" is referring to Suckking in which case he was would be correct. If the sentence is referring to just "A" Comptroller, then it woudl be who was. I would be iterested in your thoghts.
By the way, the word demand is a harsh word and I'm without the right to demand anything from you or anyone else on Wikipedia. As it should be! My role as a reviewer, as I see it, is to help make a good article better by suggestions, questons, and discussions that are all made in good fath. Pendright (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The position was highly prestigious as well as important and why Suckling, a relatively unknown candidate, was chosen by Sandwich, is not known.[36][37]
Drop the comma afteer Sandwich
Done
The naval experience that Suckling brought [to the position[ was , however, of great value to Sandwich[,] as he [who] went about reforming naval administration, with particular emphasis put on attempts to make Royal Navy shipyards more productive.
...by Captain George Townshend, another maternal relative, historian John Sugden says...: Suggest moving "another maternal relative" to precede Townshend. I initially parsed this sentence as referring to Sugden
Done
He was then on 1 November translated from Boyne...: "translated" seems an unusual term to a layman, does it mean transferred or another meaning?
Changed to "translate"
link post captain
Done
...combined with his patronage and the beginning of the Seven Years' War to almost guarantee his promotion to that rank.: This didn't quite read right, perhaps the last part should be "...Seven Years' War to almost guaranteed his promotion to that rank."?
Done
Having returned from this, Suckling then had Nelson join the 24-gun...: this could be read as referring to Suckling having returned, rather than Nelson
Reworded
appointing Maurice a clerk in the Naval Office: what's the Naval Office? I see later in the Death section mention of a Navy Office, is this what was meant? (if so, the link will need to be moved).
"In 1775 he unsuccessfully applied to the Admiralty for shore-based appointments in Newfoundland and Jamaica". - Unless I'm missing something, the source doesn't specifically state he was unsuccessful. Are we basing his lack of success on the fact that he wasn't appointed to either position? --Ykraps (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence also contained some close paraphrasing which I attempted to remove with this edit [[5]]. Feel free to rewrite if you wish. --Ykraps (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Suckling's sister Catherine had died on 26 December 1767" - You've used Sugden, who does indeed say December, to reference this but did you notice the next used reference, Syrett p. 37, says June? Can we have a quick look to see what the majority view is, use that date, double up on the refs, and add fn for other date/s? --Ykraps (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ykraps: Hi, thanks for looking through this. Agree that I've gone a little far with the Admiralty applications and have removed "unsuccessfully" (although I expect this was the case!). Catherine's date of death is an interesting puzzle. I struggled to find any other truly RS sources that mention her full date of death; her Wikipedia article only cites Sugden! I think it is likely that Sugden is correct and Syrett has made an error because Catherine's gravestone [6] says 26 December. That said, I've added Syrett's separate date as a note. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I am happy that the sourcing meets A-class standards. They are reliable and of good quality, consistently formatted, and I have checked most for accuracy and close paraphrasing and some of those, I have listed below. Older sources are standard reference for articles on this subject and are routinely commented on by more modern historians such as Lambert, Hore and Gardiner so I see no problem using them either here or at FAC, if that's where you intend to go next. --Ykraps (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks for accuracy and close paraphrasing
WP article:
While some records suppose that he was supported in his joining of the navy by another maternal relative, Captain George Townshend, historian John Sugden says this was the doing of Walpole
Sources:
One authority states that Maurice Suckling entered the navy under the ‘auspices’ of Captain Hon. George Townshend who was a kinsman of his mother.5 While there is no evidence to support this assertion it was probably owing to the influence of Anne Suckling’s family – the Walpoles... -Syrett p. 33
Indeed, it was under auspices of the latter [Sir Robert Walpole] that Maurice had first gone to sea under Captain Thomas Fox. - Sugden 2005 p.55
WP article:
The captain of Gloucester was his relative Townshend
Sources:
[Gloucester] at the hands of George Townshend (the son of his great aunt, Dorothy Viscountess Townshend) - Sugden 2005 p.55
WP article:
The marriage further increased Suckling's network of powerful connections, as Mary was the sister-in-law of the daughter of William Cavendish, 3rd Duke of Devonshire, another powerful family.
Sources:
In 1761 his claims to attention had increased with his marriage to Mary, a sister of the second Lord Walpole and sister in law to a daughter of the third Duke of Devonshire... - Sugden 2005 p.55
WP article:
Suckling left his sword, said to have previously been owned by Galfridus Walpole, to Nelson.
Sources:
The heirloom [Suckling's sword] was rumoured to have once belonged to Captain Suckling's great uncle, the naval hero Galfridus Walpole. - Sugden 2005 p. 132
WP article:
Suckling's sister Catherine had died on 26 December 1767, leaving behind three sons; William, Maurice, and Horatio Nelson
Sources:
On the 26 December 1767, Catherine died... - Sugden 2005 p. 40
...Suckling’s older sister Catherine Nelson had died. Catherine was the wife of Edmund Nelson, Rector of Hilbrough and Burnham Thorp, and when she died she left behind three sons... ...one of her sons, William Nelson... ...while another son, Maurice Nelson... And Horatio Nelson, Catherine’s third son, entered the Royal Navy... - Syrett p. 37
WP article:
A view promoted in older biographies of Nelson, that he was unaware his uncle was to examine him and that Suckling did not tell the other examiners of their relationship, "not wish[ing] the younker to be favoured", has been questioned in more recent years by Sugden and naval historian R. J. B. Knight.
Sources:
While some older Nelson biographies take this version of events at face value, more recent attempts have identified the obvious holes in the story. These will be explored in due course. - Croft p. 38
...both Howarth and Howarth’s and Hibbert’s biographies (first published in 1988 and 1994, respectively) reproduce the ‘alarmed/confused’ line, while more recent retellings (the publication of Sugden’s first volume coincided with the Trafalgar bicentenary in 2005; Knight’s likewise) scrutinize this quotation and ultimately conclude that it is unreliable. - Croft p. 40
WP article:
Suckling lived in Barsham until the age of four when his father died. His mother then, along with his sister Catherine and brother William, moved the family to live at Beccles in the same county. Nothing is known of Suckling's childhood past this point apart from that he continued to live in Beccles.
Sources:
Maurice Suckling was born in the rectory house of Barsham in Suffolk on 4 May 1726... Four years after the birth of the future Captain Suckling, the Reverend Maurice Suckling died in 1730 and his widow Anne Suckling, with her daughter Catherine and her two sons Maurice and William, moved to Beccles in Suffolk. - Syrett p. 33
Nothing is known about Maurice Suckling’s childhood before he entered the navy in 1739 other than the fact that he lived with his mother, sister and brother at Beccles. - Syrett p. 33
WP article:
During his tenure the mobilisation of the navy for war saw the number of ships under his purview expand from 110 in October 1775 to 306 in July 1778. Suckling attended the majority of meetings called by the Navy Board, often six days a week, overseeing both the growth of the navy and the creation of a fleet of 416 troop transports to convey the army across to America.
Sources:
The Commissioners of the Navy usually met six days a week - Syrett p. 38
...the Commissioners of the Navy met 27 times and Suckling attended 25 of these meetings. - Syrett p. 38
Moreover, during the three years that Suckling was Controller of the Royal Navy, it increased in strength from a force which, in June 1775, consisted of 110 ships of all classes, manned by 16,301 men, to a strength that reached, in July1778, 306 ships manned by 72,839 men. - Syrett p. 38
the Commissioners of the Navy also chartered and fitted for service a further 416 ships, consisting of 128,427 tons, to convey an army of about 27,000men across the Atlantic to North America. - Syrett p. 38
WP article:
Having missed almost every battle that took place during the War of the Austrian Succession and Seven Years' War, Syrett argues that the majority of Suckling's career was "uneventful and perhaps even lacklustre"
Sources:
Maurice Suckling’s career as an officer in the Royal Navy was uneventful and perhaps even lacklustre. Serving in mostly large ships and fighting in only one minor battle, he was not present at any of the great events or battles of the War of Austrian Succession and the Seven Years War - Syrett p. 39
WP article:
Naval historian N. A. M. Rodger argues that Suckling was a "less successful choice" than Palliser had been because of this, but that he was still an able man.
Sources:
His [Palliser] replacement, Captain Maurice Suckling, was also an able man but a less successful choice, mainly because he was seriously ill within two years of appointment. - Rodger p. 372
WP article:
Having initially served again as fourth lieutenant, Suckling was promoted to become Boyne's third on 9 January 1748 and her second on 16 August.
Sources:
6.5.1747 (28.10.1748) 4L, Boyne (80); 9.1.1747/48 (28.10.1748) 3L, Boyne (80); 16.8.1748 (28.10.1748) 2L, Boyne (80) - Cy Harrison p. 464
Then on 9 June 1747 Suckling became third lieutenant of HMS Boyne and, by a commission dated 16 August 1747, he was promoted to second lieutenant of that ship. - Syrett p. 34
The discussion above 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.
I came to this article via a key text that Pajović wrote which I used in my first FA, Pavle Đurišić, a controversial Montenegrin Chetnik leader of WWII. Pajović is considered the most prominent historian of the World War II period in Montenegro, and one of the most prominent Montenegrin historians overall. He did his PhD on the WWII Chetnik Federalist movement in Montenegro, and was on the faculty of what is now the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Montenegro for forty years. He wrote or co-wrote twelve books, and railed against historical revisionism of the WWII period in Montenegro and in the former Yugoslavia more generally. He died in 2019. This article went through a GAN by Hawkeye7 late last year. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Internationally, he has been dubbed "the most prominent historian of the [World War II] period in Montenegro" ". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
"Pajović made a major contribution to the Institute of History over forty years". Given that you open the section by referencing his forty years, maybe something like 'Pajović made a major contribution to the Institute of History during his forty years there'?
His most notable works were Kontrarevolucija u Crnoj Gori: četnički i federalistički pokret 1941—1945 [Counterrevolution in Montenegro: The Chetnik and Federalist Movements 1941–1945] published in 1977, Pavle Đurišić: kontroverzni četnički vojvoda [Pavle Đurišić: Controversial Chetnik Duke], first published in 1987 and then supplemented and expanded and re-published in 2005, and Crna Gora kroz istoriju [Montenegro Through History] also published in 2005.
Have been and has been are used to mean that something began in the past and has lasted into the present time.It's your call! Pendright (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the difference is that simple past tense refers to a situation of the past (definitely before the present) and without connection to the present (not implying anything about what may be true now), and present perfect tense refers to a situation of the past but in an unspecified manner that may continue to the present time. So, it seems to me that simple past tense is best in this situation. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was the author or co-author of twelve books, the editor of more than twenty, and published around one hundred articles and other contributions.
He attened high school in Nikšić, [and] then in 1957 [Pajović] commenced studying at the Department of History at the University of Belgrade Faculty of Philosophy.
He spent a year working in the archives of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Montenegro, before commencing work the following year at the Institute of History at the Pedagogical College in Cetinje (later the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Montenegro).
As a historian, he mainly concentrated on the modern history of Montenegro, specialising in World War II, for which he was "highly respected both at home and abroad... ::Drop the comma after WWII
Pajović also edited more than twenty books, published around one hundred articles and other contributions,[1] and made a "significant contribution to Montenegr in historiography",[2] according to Miljić.[2]
He participated in the writing of the history of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia and the history of the League of Communists of Montenegro, was the president of the Association of Historians of Montenegro and a member of the presidency of the Association of Historians of Yugoslavia.
In the 1990s, in the countries that emerged from the dissolution of Yugoslavia, a politically-motivated popular trend in historiography was the historical rehabilitation of World War II figures who collaborated with the Axis powers and were involved in massacres of civilians during the war.
These included attempts to erect monuments in honor of Pavle Đurišić, an Axis collaborator who committed many massacres in the Sandzak region of Montenegro, and Puniša Račić, a Montenegrin Serb politician who murdered three and wounded two more Croat politicians on the floor of the National Assembly of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in June 1928.
He also claimed that historical evidence confirms the existence of an autocephalous Montenegrin Orthodox Church, and that it had been unlawfully abolished by force by Prince Regent Alexander of Yugoslavia in 1920.[2][7]
Andrijašević concluded by decrying the fact that the event had to be organised by the Association of Fighters and Anti-Fascists and not by the Institute of History, and condemned Pajović's former colleagues at the Institute who specialised in World War II history for not attending the event, stating that this was indicative of a malaise within the study and teaching of history in Montenegro.[3]
Internationally, Pajović has been acknowledged as the most prominent historian of the events of World War II in Montenegro,[2][8] and one of the most prominent Montenegrin historians in general.[9]
"He has been dubbed "the most prominent historian of the [World War II] period in Montenegro" by the Montenegrin historian Srđa Pavlović" - rather nit-picky, but you could argue that the exact quote would need some form of direct citation, as this does not appear in a direct quote form in the body
He participated in the writing of the history of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia and the history of the League of Communists of Montenegro, he was the president of the Association of Historians of Montenegro and a member of the presidency of the Association of Historians of Yugoslavia. - I don't know that the comma to separate the two clauses works, as both are independent clauses
"According to Miljić, Pajović made a major contribution to the Institute of History during his time there" - is it possible to elaborate on this briefly? A contribution to a university could just as equally be academic or monetary (assuming the former in this case)
G'day Maleschreiber, would you feel comfortable doing a source review for this, given you know the quality of the various online sources in the former Yugoslavia and some of the historiography? WP:MH/A-CLASS Criteria A1 refers. Your contribution would be appreciated, but no harm if you wish to steer clear. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, P. Hope you've been well. I will gladly help. I'll be able to do the review & reply extensively tomorrow if it's OK with you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The bibliography of the article reflects the consensus in reliable sources about R. Pajović's work and his contribution in Yugoslav historiography. A multitude of sources written by both local, post-Yugoslav academics and international specialists on the history of Yugoslavia have been used and are accurately represented in Peacemaker's writing. All sources used are verifiable via external links and - where necessary - claims are directly attributed to specific historians. The state of the academic discussion about his work might likely warrant more direct claims in wikivoice than attributed ones. It might be worth to - very briefly - mention the background of the academics who have appraised Pajović's work as both Kenneth Morrison and Srđa Pavlović (University of Alberta bio) are highly acclaimed specialists in their respective fields, but the wider audience might not know the weight of the views of these historians. Marijan Mašo Miljić is the head of the Archives of the Historical Institute of Montenegro (University of Montenegro). While not directly related to the source review itself, a source which can be added as a reference to the reception of his work during the Yugoslav era is the 1979 academic review of The Counter-revolution in Montenegro by Branko Petranović. It is very thorough and extensive and - to the best of my knowledge - it is the first review which began to establish the later consensus about Pajović's work. I hope that I've been able to help with the review process.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
This article is about one of the more obscure 9th-century Abbasid caliphs, chiefly due to his short reign, from 842 to 847. It was nevertheless a reign very active in the military, political, and religious areas. The article passed GA in 2021, and was expanded somewhat in October 2022. I am confident it is as comprehensive as it can be, and would like to submit it eventually to FA, so any suggestions for further improvement are always welcome. Constantine ✍ 10:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lead feels rather anemic for a Commander of the Faithful.
Hmmm, you may be right, but the encyclopedia articles I found about him were not much lengthier. Do you feel there are particular aspects that should be expanded upon more?
Would recommend use of "CE" in the lead rather than AD, in spite of the shared Abrahamic canon between Christianity and Islam.
That's my usual practice as well. Changed.
#Early life should note that al-Mu'tasim was Caliph, and give al-Wathiq's name in full.
Done on the former, but the latter is already there: both his name and kunya are mentioned explicitly.
[...] especially in Baghdad and the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Why isn't Mecca linked here?
Per MOS:OVERLINK, as it is linked previously (on the road to Mecca)
[...] resulting in clashes that left some dead (February/March 845). "some" is meaningless here.
Indeed. Rephrased.
Accompanied by troops from the Shakiriyyah, Turkish, and the Magharibah guard regiments [...] Turkish what? And whom or what are these other bodies?
It should be 'the Shakiriyyah, Turkish, and Magharibah guard regiments', fixed now.
This still doesn't tell the uninitiated what the Shakiriyyah is. If it is a unit of Turkish and Magharibah troops, then I recommend using emdashes rather than commas for this explanation.
No, all of them are different guard regiments; the Shakiriyya [guard regiment], Turkish [guard regiment], and Magharibah [guard regiment]. I really don't know a better/clearer way of explaining that. Constantine ✍ 11:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "Accompanied by troops from the Shakiriyyah and Magharibah—[guard regiments]—and additional Turkish guard regiments..."? –♠Vamí_IV†♠11:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, unfortunately such a phrasing would be incorrect; there were three guard regiments: the Shakiriyyah, Magharibah, and 'Atrak' i.e. Turks. All three terms have ethnic or regional connotations, but the Turks are usually rendered in English as the term is familiar to us, whereas the others are not. Constantine ✍ 11:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[...] and let the rest free. Recommend condensing to "and freed the rest."
Changed.
[...] he also forced the Banu Hilal to submit on the same terms. What terms.
Same as the Sulaym. Clarified.
#Suppression of rebels gets too far away from al-Wathiq himself in favor of the exploits of his vassals. The third paragraph especially is quite large and could do with reduction.
I know, but monarchs' articles, at a time when said monarchs exercised real power, have to cover the events of their reign. But you are right on the third para, have trimmed it down.
[...] before he returned to Basra [...] Link Basra here.
Done.
The Mus'abid [...] The who?
Removed, as despite the link it is apparently confusing an does not convey critical information.
His father is stated to be "all the more since his father was initially a junior prince without prospects of succession" but then becomes caliph. While this isn't as relevant to al-Wathiq is it would be to his father, I think some sort of brief explanation as to how/why this happened is necessary to explain how al-Wathiq became part heir apparent to the caliphate
Excellent suggestion, as it also allows to introduce the Turkish troops. Done.
"His mother, Qaratis, accompanied al-Wathiq's brother Ja'far (the future caliph al-Mutawakkil) on the pilgrimage in 842, but she died on the way at al-Hirah, on 16 August 842. She was buried in Kufa" - is this particularly relevant to an article on al-Wathiq?
It is relevant a) as part of his personal history, and b) as an act of public piety from the new caliph: his mother and brother led the pilgrimage. Have rephrased slightly to tighten this up.
Is it worth mentioning directly which view on the createdness of the Quran al-Wathiq took?
"Abū Jaʿfar Hārūn ibn Muḥammad (Arabic: أبو جعفر هارون بن محمد المعتصم;" Unlink Arabic.
No problem with doing it, but what is the reason?
The language is too well known per MOS:OVERLINK we don't need to link it.
Done.
The lead doens't include the "Death and succession", "Assessment and legacy" and the "Family" sections.
Quite right. Added.
"Al-Wathiq was born on 17 April 812 (various sources give slightly earlier or later dates in 811–813)," I think this should be a foodnote with some examples which sources.
This comes from al-Tabari, who does not name his sources, and Turner just provides the timeframe 811-813 ("Other dates are given but it is clear that he was born either during the war between the brothers or at the beginning of his uncle al-Maʾmūn’s reign.")
"His father was the Abbasid prince, and later caliph, al-Mu'tasim" Reign here?
Added.
"elite private army of Turkish slave troops" This is a bit misleading people would think the sentence means Turks from Turkey instead of Turkic groups.
This reflects usage in the sources. Have changed to 'Turkic' though to avoid confusion.
"he took care for his son and heir-apparent" What's his name?
al-Wathiq is meant here
No meant his son what's his son's name?
Yes. The 'son and heir-apparent' of al-Mu'tasim is al-Wathiq. I have rephrased to hopfully make it clearer.
"uppression of the revolt of Babak Khorramdin in 838" --> "uppression of the revolt of Babak Khorramdin in 838 in modern-day Iran"
added
"someone else to convey a message to the caliph" --> "someone else to convey a message to the Caliph"
Done
"These men had been personally loyal to al-Mu'tasim" Doesn't sound encyclopedic to me?
Why? The pattern of men raised to high station by a strong patron and then not showing the same loyalty to his 'weaker' (i.e. usually young and unwarlike) successor is a very common theme in history.
"However, in 843/4, the Caliph" --> "However, in 843/44, the Caliph"?
Fixed.
"after, but his son, Muhammad" MOS:EGG here plus he might be confused with the prophet.
Rather unlikely, since we are already talking about things like Islam and caliphs here, but added the nisbah for clarity.
"A minor Kharijite uprising in 845/6" --> "A minor Kharijite uprising in 845/46"?
Fixed.
"scheduled for the night of 4 April 846" is this the night of 3/4 or 4/5?
Clarified.
"early, and there was no response.[37][36]" Re-order the refs here.
Done.
"The caliph interrogated al-Khuza'i publicly" --> "The Caliph interrogated al-Khuza'i publicly"
Fixed.
"Byzantine Sicily, capturing Messina (842/3), Modica (845), and Leontini (846).[56] In 845/6, the Aghlabids captured" --> "Byzantine Sicily, capturing Messina (842/43), Modica (845), and Leontini (846).[56] In 845/46, the Aghlabids captured"?
Fixed.
"the Tiber River and their crews raided the environs of Rome" Unlink Rome.
Done.
"movements of the Kirghiz Turks at the time" MOS:EGG here.
Why? There was only one set of 'Kirghiz Turks' in the 9th century, and the article name linked to is for disambiguating between the modern Kyrgyz people. I would think this goes under A link's visible label does not need to match the exact title of the article being linked from MOS:EGG.
"to Ibn Khordadbeh, the caliph sent the astronomer al-Khwarizmi" --> "to Ibn Khordadbeh, the Caliph sent the astronomer al-Khwarizmi"
Fixed.
"His age is variously given as 32, 34, or 36 years at the time" Maybe explain that this is the Islamic years?
Given that we are only waiting for CPA-5, and that all of their points seem addressed, I am going to step in and provide the third support. Nice work, BTW. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Concluding article in the series on British logistics in the campaign in North West Europe in 1944-1945, taking the story down to the conclusion of the war in Europe. (Its American counterpart is still in the works.) For some reason the campaigns of 1945 has not been covered in the literature or the Wikipedia nearly as well as those of 1944. Once again though, I have uncovered some striking images and maps and high quality sources. Hawkeye7(discuss)03:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fascinating topic for an article, and is in great shape. I agree that there's an odd neglect of the western Allied invasion of Germany in the literature - it was one of the most successful, and most important, campaigns of the war but is seemingly of little interest to historians. I have the following comments:
Either the first sentence of the lead or the article is too narrow, given that logistics for the RAF units involved in the campaign were also significant.
The background section should be broadened to note that the 21st Army Group was a multinational formation - the First Canadian Army should be noted, along with the presence of other smaller national contingents, though I think that most of them were used as part of the sieges in France in this period. As the article notes, all were dependent on British logistical support.
The background section should also note the logistical story for the 21st AG up to this point in the war - e.g. that it enjoyed good logistical support from the invasion of Normandy (which was needed and formed an explicit part of British Army doctrine which emphasised firepower and mobility to limit casualties), and various problems that affected it over the autumn and winter were largely ironed out.
I'd suggest weaving in a link to Surrendered Enemy Personnel somewhere in the material on German prisoners. The topic is somewhat controversial due to allegations the prisoners were mistreated after the war (largely by the French and Americans - the British seem to have treated their POWs relatively well).
During the war. Apparently 2.6 per cent of German prisoners held by the French died, compared with 0.1 per cent by the Americans, and 0.03 per cent by the British (and 35.8 per cent of those held by the Soviet Union). The whole point about Surrendered Enemy Personnel was that (contrary to what our article says) they were not POWs and were not treated as such. Hawkeye7(discuss)02:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While the post-war period is out of scope, it might be worth noting briefly the huge logistical problems the 21st Army Group faced as it transitioned to becoming an army of occupation - the German economy and transport system was destroyed and the population was facing mass starvation. One of the reasons rationing became even more strict in the UK after the war was the need to feed Germans in the British occupation zone. The occupation army also continued to receive a high standard of logistical support after the war.
It is not just a matter of it being outside article scope; it is also outside the scope of my sources. I will have to use different ones to write a paragraph at the end. Hawkeye7
The relevant volume of the British official history series has some good material on this, and is online at Archive.org [7]. As I said, it's somewhat out of scope. Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"This required major operations". If these were largely military, as opposed to, say, mine clearing, construction, rubble and boobytrap clearing etc, then perhaps 'required major military operations'?
"In turn this demanded a high degree of organisation and professionalism required to utilise the available machines and firepower to best effect". This doesn't quite work grammatically. Consider removing "required".
By 1945 the British Army was highly experienced, professional and proficient. This is vague and somewhat redundant. I suggest the addition of just a little bit of context, especially since "By 1945" would suggest that this sentence is referring to the British experience of logistics throughout the war rather than the specific period of January to May 1945.
The offensive was supported by 600 field and 300 medium guns. Over 2.5 million rounds of 25-pounder ammunition were made available. Do the field and medium guns both shoot 25-pound shells?
[...] from the UK [...] While there's no doubt at all that just about anyone who will read this article will know that "UK" here means "United Kingdom", and it's obvious from context anyway, I'll still highlight that this is the first time the acronym occurs in the article and without explanation.
MOS:ACRO: For these commonly-referred-to entities, the full name does not need to be written out in full on first use, nor provided on first use in parentheses after the full name if written out.Hawkeye7(discuss)11:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know the RAF flew jet fighters during the War! And that they ran on kerosene fascinates me. Yesterday's lamp becometh tomorrow's jet.
Petrol was brought in tankers and over the Operation Pluto pipeline. Is this petrol distinct from our old friend POL?
Yes. POL is all fuels. "Petrol" is the British word for motor spirit. It was originally a brand name, but long ago became the regular word. Americans call it "gasoline", which was also once a brand name. The main types of POL in use in the period were petrol (MT-80), aviation spirit (MT-100), kerosene (JP-1), distillate (diesel) and fuel oil (bunker fuel). Hawkeye7(discuss)11:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[...] for which [Montgomery's] Allied forces were particularly suited; [...] As opposed to his Axis forces?
The Combined Chiefs further decided to reinforce Eisenhower's armies in North West Europe at the expense of those in the Mediterranean. When/where was this decided?
At the rail stop there were messes and a kitchen that ran 24 hours a day. During the two-hour rail halt, the troops were served a hot meal and provided with sandwiches for the next one. For the next day or the next rail stop?
[...] and the divisions were issued with Arctic clothing and equipment that had been stockpiled for operations in Norway. ...from all the way back in 1940?
[...] while the attached II Canadian Corps continued to draw its from the First Canadian Army's No. 13 Army Roadhead at Nijmegen. [...] while the US 17th Airborne Division drew its from the US Ninth Army. Recommend "its supplies" as in the previous relevant clauses.
Additional supplies of fuel were loaded on DUKWs, which ferried fuel across the river until bridges were opened. This can be condensed with no loss in quality.
File:Operation Goldflake.jpg - with the current tag, you would need to include a tag for why it's PD in the US. This is presumably Canada Crown Copyright, so if that's the case switching to the crown copyright tag would work.
The discussion above 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.
"1985 found the vessel undertaking anti-submarine exercises against US Navy submarines demonstrating the Soviet capability of joint operations between aircraft, ships and submarines" - this is a bit breathless, and over-complex for the lead
I have removed the sentence and added a more general comment.
Is there any commentary on whether using these ships to destroy NATO attack subs to clear the way for Yankee class Soviet subs was a good idea? It seems daft.
There is no information in Soviet sources so it is hard to tell. As the confrontation never happened in war, there is no evidence either way.
Did the Ka-25 helicopter have any anti-sub sensors of its own, or was it reliant on the ship to locate targets and direct attacks (which is what the current text implies)
Added explicit mention that the helicopter could carry sensors added to the section on sensors.
Why did the crew refuse to sail in 1976, and what happened to them?
Clarified. There is no mention of a reason in the sources, or whether the crew were punished.
"to build friendly relationships between the host countries and the Soviet Union." - seems an over-statement ('to contribute to' perhaps?)
Changed.
"1985 was a year of exercises" - the subsequent text doesn't really support this, as it describes what look like the same types of activities the ship undertook each year
Support Apologies for being slow to respond here, but I thought that this article would benefit from other reviewers before I felt comfortable supporting. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In 1982, Vasily Chapayev was allocated to support the BOR-4 spaceplane programme, and in 1984 [it] participated in a major Soviet search for a US Navy submarine near the Kamchatka Peninsula.
Suggest the above change
I have amended the sentence, and changed it to avoid the repeated phrase.
As you should be, however, your source seems surprisingly limited on details on an event that is described as major. Under the circumstances, it seems like the best that can be done now is to make the sentence a bit clearer and more accurate - if you can live with the suggested changes then we'll mmove on.
Vasily Chapayev was allocated to support the BOR-4 spaceplane programme, and two years later, the vessel participated in a major Soviet search for a US Navy submarine [that was suspected of being] near the Kamchatka Peninsula [in the Russian Far East].
The comma after later is unnecessary
Add "that was suspected of being" -> The body indicates thart the sub was not identified as a US sub until four days later.
In 1985, the ship took part in a simulated joint operations attack on the US base at Pearl Harbor and, during the following year, the first joint exercises between the Soviet and North Korean Navies.
in "the" simulated joint "operations"
This was one example, so I feel that the indefinite article is more appropriate.
<>In British Engish, according to my research, the definite article "the" is used in front of a noun when we believe the reader knows exactly what we are referring to. In any event, it's your call. Pendright (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added the link, although the article seems to have a broader understanding of simulation including chess.
joint operations with whom?
Other parts of the Soviet armed forces. An alternative name for these are combined operations.
Suggest the sentence end after Pearl Harbor, and then begin a new sentence. Consider something like this for the second sentence: -> During the following year, the first joint exercises ocurred between the Soviet and North Korean Navies.
I have split the sentence and amended the wording.
General:
Ship articles ordinarily provide readers with a bit more informaton about the ship itself - such as its main battery and so on.
Added a bit about the main armament.
Describing why the ship was built would be an appropriate lesd addition.
Added a mention of the purpose and expansion of the role.
Add "Background section":
The Cold War is pivotol to the context of the article's storyline, -> Show readers the connection.
I have added a sentence.
Design and development:
Vasily Chapayev was the ninth ship of the class of ten Project 1134A Berkut A (NATO reporting name: 'Kresta II'-class) cruisers, [that was or were] designed by Vasily Anikeyev.[1]
Suggest the above changes
Done
The class were designated as large anti-submarine ships (Russian: Большой Противолодочный Корабль, BPK) in accordance with their primary mission of countering NATO ballistic missile submarines, particularly the US Navy fleet of Polaris-equipped submarines.
NATO is an alliance of sovereign countries; NATO relies on the military forces of its member countries to carry out an operation or mission as it does not possess military forces of its own. -> This is pertinent information that should be shared directly with readers.
Clarified.
However, before the ships began to be built, commander-in-chief of the Soviet Navy Admiral Sergey Gorshkov changed the role of the ships to that of destroying NATO attack submarines to allow Soviet Project 667A Navaga (NATO reporting name: 'Yankee'-class) ballistic missile submarines to reach the central Atlantic and Pacific, from where the latter could launch their comparatively short-ranged ballistic missiles against targets in the United States.[2][3]
A rough count suggess this sentence contains about 70 words -> Comsider breaking it up
Split into two sentences.
When it is, think about this addition -> "changed the role of the ships to that of [being capable of] destroying NATO attack submarines"
Done.
The ship's complement was 343 officers and ratings.
suggest officers and "enlisted men" -> It's reader friedly ad it does not require a link
This is a good suggestion but I am not sure of the gender of the sailors.
Vasily Chapayev was propelled by two TV-12-1 geared steam turbines each powered by four high-pressure boilers, with the forward engine room powering the port screw and the aft [one] the starboard [screw].
Suggest the above changes
Amended.
[The ship's] T [t]otal power was 91,000 shaft horsepower (67,859 kW), giving a maximum speed of 34 knots (63 km/h; 39 mph).[6]
Suggest the above changes
Amended.
General:
Add the maximum fuel capacity and the type of fuel used?
Added with reference.
Armament:
The Ka-25 helicopter embarked on the ship was also capable of aiding in the search and destruction of submarines, and as such [it] could carry depth charges and torpedoes.[9]
Suggest the above change
Amended.
The vessel also had four AK-725 57 mm (2.2 in) dual-purpose guns situated in two twin mountings, one on either side aft of the funnel, to protect against surface and aerial threats.
Suggest the above change
Removed.
Two quintuple PT-53-1134A mountings for 533 mm (21 in) torpedoes were also fitted aft of the funnel which could be used in both the anti-shipping and anti-submarine role.[13]
For fire-control purposes the vessel had Grom-M for the surface-to-air missiles, MR-103 Bars for the AK-725 and MR-123 Vympel for the AK-630.[4]
Add a comma after purposes
Added.
The ship's electronic warfare equipment included the MRP-15-16 Zaliv and two sets each of the MRP-11-12 and MRP-13-14 direction-finding systems, as well as the MRP-150 Gurzuf A and MRP-152 Gurzuf B radar-jamming devices.[15]
I do not understand. The linked article is called electronic warfare.
General:
Should the heading include [anti]-warfare?
There is no reference to this in the sources.
Construction and career:
Ordered on 11 June 1970 from the Zhdanov Shipyard[,] Vasily Chapayev, [was] allocated the yard number 729, [the ship] was laid down on 22 November 1973 and launched on 28 November 1974.[16]
Suggest the above changes
I have amended and split the sentence.
Vasily Chapayev [The cruiser] was named in honour of the Soviet Civil War commander Vasily Chapayev.
Suggest the above changes
Amended.
General:
Chronologically, the construction part of this secion would seem better placed under the Design and ddevolpment section.
1970s:
Captain 1st Rank A. A. Agadzhanov was transferred from Vladivostok to take command and [of[ the warship, and [it] departed Leningrad in 1977 for the port that would be home for the rest of the ship's career.[18]
Suggest the above changes
Amended.
What month in 1977
The sources do not say.
In June 1978,Vasily Chapayev joined a fleet of Soviet warships, including the Project 68bis (NATO reporting name: 'Sverdlov' class) cruiser Admiral Senyavin and the Project 58 (NATO reporting name: 'Kynda' class) cruiser Admiral Fokin, [to sail] in sailing to [for] Vietnam to promote peace
after the Sino-Vietnamese War.[20]
Suggest the above changes
Amended.
The crew was honoured for their service, with 36 receiving government commendations.
Honored by whom?
The sources are not explicit. Implicitly the Soviet authorities.
The vessel returned in March.[18]
Returned to its home port?
Clarified.
1980s and end of service:
Vasily Chapayev started the next decade in Vladivostok.
Suggest the above change
I have removed the sentence as the port is clear from the previous paragraph.
The vessel spent the year visiting countries in and around the [Indian] o[O]cean.
The ship then travelled on to Ethiopia, where short preventative maintenance repairs were performed, and then subsequently [it] travelled to Maputo, Mozambique, and Socatra, Yemen, before returning to Vladivostok via Victoria and Vietnam.[18]
Was this travel generally to show the flag?
Suggest the above changes
Amended.
On 28 September 1984, the ship left Vladivostok as part of a large fleet of Soviet vessels led by the Project 1143 Krechyet (NATO reporting name: 'Kiev' class) aircraft carrier Novorossiysk on a mission to search for a US Navy nuclear submarine [reported] off the coast of the Kamchatka Peninsula.
Suggest the above change
Amended.
Two days later, on 30 September, a radioactive signature consistent with a submarine was detected[,] and on 2 October, the Soviet Project 877 Paltus (NATO reporting name: 'Kilo' class) class submarine B-404 identified a US submarine in the Kuril Strait.
Suggest the above changes
Amended.
Was the sub in International waters or Territorial waters? If it was in international waters it had as much right to be there as the Soviets - in either case this should be clarifid.
The ships then all returned to [their home] port[s].[22]
Suggest the above changes
Amended.
After a short anti-submarine exercise in February, on 29 March 1985, Vasily Chapayev accompanied Nikolayev, Novorossiysk and a host of smaller vessels under the command of Vice-Admiral Rostislav Leonidovich Dymov to [for] the Pacific Ocean [to] undertake a major exercise to [for] test[ing] the joint operations capability of [within] the Soviet armed forces.
"After a short anti-submarine exercise in February," -> Drop this clause since it has nothing to do with the main part of the sentence.
suggest the above changes
I have amended these and removed the subclause.
The fleet progressed to the coast of Hawaii, and [they or it] proceeded to run a simulated attack on Pearl Habor.
Suggest the above change
Amended.
The logistices and exsecution involed in this military war game would seem extensive, yet less than 20 words are devoted to what took place leading up to and durng the the simulated (Military simulation) attack. -> Suggest puting some meant on the bones here - it appears there is or sbould be plenty of potential to elaborate.
That seems a reasonable assumption. However, the sources do not go into that much detail, including whether Vasily Chapayev had a command role.
The test proved the value of a co-ordinated attack by aircraft, ships and submarines using long-range cruise missiles.
Was it the test or the "outcome" of the test?
Amended.
Who made this pronouncement and on what basis?
The sources are not clear. Implicitly the Soviet authorities.
Between 15 and 17 October 1986, the ship was involved in the first joint exercise between the Soviet Union and the Korean People's Navy, simulating an amphibious attack on Rason.
How about a few details?
There is not much more in the sources. There is some information about the political fall-out, and particularly the effect it had on US relations with North Korea but nothing more on the ship's participation.
The crew was subsequently named amongst the most capable in the Soviet Navy at anti-submarine warfare.[23]
By whom
Added.
Overall:
The NATO reporting name link shows readers that it is a system of code names used by NATO to idemtify military warships, aircraft, or subnarines used by the Soviet Union and others. It utilizies one or two-syllable names instead of proper names. However, the article is not about NATO, it's about a Soviet ship built to counter a class of submarines under the command of NATO. -> So in what way or manner is the use of code names relevfant to this article?
My reasoning is based on the way that many of the sources prefer the NATO code names to the Soviet designation and, as therefore the readers may know these better, I suggest it is worth including them. For example, in the 1974 edition of Jane's, only NATO code names are given for the class, radar, helicopter etc.
A few third party comments about the ship from Friedman, Janes, or others would help give a bit of balance to the article, which it now lacks.
The editions of Conway's or Jane's I have give no comments on the vessel's service beyond bare facts and dates. Please can you direct me to the books that you mean.
<>I was fishing for bare facts - like, was the ship equal to ships of other nations, did certain features of it stand out against other ships internationally and so on. -> If your sources contain no such info, then scratch the comment. Pendright (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit tricky as these were large anti-submarine vessels that do not seem to have direct counterparts in NATO. I have added a bit to the introduction paragraph for context.
The discussion above 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.
The 1st Armoured Division, not to be confused with the similarly named formation from the 1970s through to the 2010s, was formed in November 1937 as the Mobile Division. It was sent to France after the German offensive began, fought a couple of engagements before returning to the UK having lost practically all its tanks. After a period defending the UK, it was dispatched to North Africa where it fought in most of the major armoured battles from Gazala to the Second Battle of El Alamein. It was then on to Tunisia before a final campaign in Italy. After fighting through the Gothic Line, the division was broken-up to provide reinforcements for others. The division number was briefly reused (1946–47) in the post-war period when the 6th Armoured Division was renamed. The guild of copyedits have given the article the once over and it has just recently passed its GA review.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulation on tackling this one. After the 7th Armoured Division, it was probably the most significant British division of the war. The article is very good. Some comments:
Suggest moving fn 14 to the end of the previous sentence.
" equipped with 78 light cruisers, 45 heavy cruisers" What tanks were these exactly?
Joslen provides the totals of what were supposed to be in the division but does not state what specific models were to be used. This was partially why I added a note on the end of that section to provide some documented examples of what a light and heavy was, in addition to such definitions (that seem to be fuzzy at best, depending on the source you look at) being requested previously. Crow notes the arrival of A9s and A13s (Cruiser MK III) in late 38 but does not state numbers or what role either would play compared to the light/heavy definition. Fletcher does highlight the A9 as a light cruiser, however. Newbold, for example, lumps his cruiser figures in a column labeled "Cruiser Tanks: A9, A10, and A13" (the latter being a mixture of the MK III and MK IV by that point?). Long winded way of saying, sorry I don't know at the moment :-) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Lieutenant-General Claude Auchinleck" should be "General Sir Claude Auchinleck"
Updated on both points! Double checked the source and even the Gazette, not sure why I went with Lt-Gen over the higher rank but corrected now. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"to return it to strength" I wouldn't say this, as it was still under-strength. It replaced the 168th Brigade, which was disbanded. Similarly, I would drop "to bring them up to strength"
"Trieste, which was then within the Kingdom of Italy," No, it still is. It became part of Italy after World War I, and has been part ever since.
I think I had confused the city and the territory (portions of which went to Yugoslavia). I double checked the source and they don't mention anything to suggest the division being in part that was transferred, so have updated per your point. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"maintained its insignia of a mailed fist" This may not be clear to the reader. Suggest something like "Maintained the 6th Armoured Division's insignia of a mailed fist"
Not sure why Guy Lizard in in the See Also. And should Norman Force be mentioned in the body?
It could probably be removed (potentially name dropped in the OOB article's see also section instead?). Its article mentions that the division's HQ was outfitted with them during the Battle of France (the wording choice implies they were the sole unit to be at the time) so seemed like an interesting additional article to look at but nothing something to be shoehorned into this article's text. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Missed Norman Force! I have added mention in the article text now. Ellis does not have much to say on the subject, but does verify the division being under is command (all forces previously under Tenth Army). Seems its sole purpose was to have British forces under a British command to direct the evacuation, so I have basically just highlighted this fact and made little change to what was already in the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bell (1997) is not used - remove or move to Further reading.
Originally used to provide some background context, which was subsequently reworked and dropped. Removed, as noted, it is no longer in use. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not too fond of the map of the Gothic line. It is in error: somebody changed the US IV Corps to the IX Corps (which was in the Pacific).
Nice catch! I have replaced the newer version of the map with the old one. I can kind of see how this occurred when comparing both versions. Not sure if it would be appropriate, but hopefully an editor could fix it at some point. I have also added a note on the common's description page to highlight the difference between the two versions. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A rhinoceros, being the most-heavily-armoured animal, was chosen as the divisional insignia.: the cite for this doesn't support the "most-heavily-armoured animal", I would also suggest rephrasing it to be less definitive regarding being "the most-heavily-armoured". No doubt it is heavily armoured but not sure if it is the most so
Once you are on the IWM page, make sure to click "show more" under physical description. It then provides a history section to provide context, the first line of that covers the above part.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In April 1939, the division was renamed the 1st Armoured Division.[8]: suggest moving this sentence to midway in the following paragraph as it is a little out of place chronologically.
the 1st Heavy (formally the Tank Brigade)...: formally or formerly? I suspect the latter, particularly given the 1st is mentioned later in this paragraph
As the Allied forces advanced to meet the German invasion,...: suggest deleting the "German" here, since the "main German attack" is mentioned later in the sentence
cite 10 is used at the end of the sentence that starts The Division was then placed in reserve in Surrey but I don't see anything relevant at that webpage for what is contained in this sentence; perhaps another IWM webpage was intended?
"argued for a formation of cavalry regiments," - is this horse cavalry, or just a term used for light mechanized infantry or something?
"repelled further German attacks and 44 took prisoners" - unclear what this means?
The lead mentions Gatehouse being wounded, but not seeing that in the body?
This came about from a dispute on how the lede should read, while it was undergoing copyediting. It was copied from the GOC list. I have removed both those points from this article's lead. However, I did add in to the main text that Gatehouse was wounded and a replaced by a brigadier who led the division through the final phase of the First El Alamein fighting.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It had been expected to seize crossings over the Marano river but it had not been able to do so" - is "It" the 46th or the 1st Armoured?
I have double checked the source and made a couple of tweaks: it was hoped the 46th would cross the river first, but they were not able to do so and the 1st advanced by themselves.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really only have one major questions. Should the brief renaming of the 6th Armoured in '46-'47 actually be attributed to this unit? It almost seems to me like it's actually just a continuation of the lineage of the 6th.
Lineage has been a bit of a contentious point with this formation name. Although the discussion has not touched on this point as of yet. With that said, I agree. For example, Lord and Watson seem to suggest the 6th Armoured Division was a bit of a re-emerging of the 6th Infantry Division (that had been renamed the 70th). They list the 6th Armoured Divisional Signal Regiment as being part of the lineage of the 6th Divisional Telegraph Company. With all that said, I have removed the reference to the 6th/1st from the lead and infobox and have renamed the last section to "Post war formations with the same name" (open to suggestions for wording changes) so that they can at least be briefly spoken about. Does
@EnigmaMcmxc: - sorry about the delay in replying; I apparently didn't have this watchlisted and missed your response. The "repelled further German attacks and 44 took prisoners" is still outstanding, but I anticipate supporting once that is resolved. Hog FarmTalk17:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Further Reading reference is incorrect. It should be: Evans, R. "The 1st Armoured Division in France." Army Quarterly, Volume 45, November 1942, pp. 55-69; Volume 46, February 1943, pp. 179-187; Volume 47, May 1943, pp. 46-54.
Thank you for the additional details, I have replaced the sole reference with the details for all three volumes per the above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
An interesting topic (to me): A light tank that changed hands between defense contractors three times over four decades, and which the U.S. Army dumped no less than four times. The Army's light tank strategy has been vaporous since its decision to divest the M551 Sheridan in the late '70s. One challenge in writing this was distinguishing the AGS from the numerous conflicting light tank programs of the late '80s onward. There were many overlapping initiatives that muddied the waters with different requirements (Tracked or wheeled? Airdrop capable for the 82nd Airborne? Pure fleet of MBTs only?). Sources are mostly news reporting from Inside the Army, some R. P. Hunnicutt and Steven J. Zaloga, and some Army theses for good measure. Contemporaneous news reporting before 1992 was difficult to come by. Schierbecker (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
nb4
I have no idea whether Perry ever decided to support canceling the AGS, allowing the Army to re-appropriate FY1996 funds for the AGS. I have looked everywhere for a source.
I have not been able to find specs of the Mobile Gun System and Mobile Protected Firepower variants. It is possible that some details may be found in later editions of Janes. The latest edition I have access to is Jane's Land Warfare Platforms Armoured Fighting Vehicles 2017–2018. Schierbecker (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
" Sheridan in the 3/73rd Armor of the 82nd Airborne Division" This unit has already been mentioned above. Unlink, and suggest moving the fact that it was part of the 82nd up to first mention
" The Army issued a stop work order to United Defense the following month.[44] The Army estimated killing the program would save the service $1 billion. The Army hoped to reallocate unspent FY1996 funds" Three sentences in a row starting with "The Army" Consider re-phrasing.
I'm still unsure what Congress' arguments in favour of retaining the system were.
Link Vietnam War, National Guard, United States Marine Corps, United States Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command, Army Vice Chief of Staff, 105 mm gun, day/night thermal sight
As best as I can tell, M8 "Buford" was coined by Tom Clancy in Armored Cav (1994). Mike Sparks (the guy who crusaded on Wiki talk pages to rename the M113 after General James M. Gavin) calls it the "Buford" in Air-Mech-Strike (2002) and also the "Ridgeway" on Combat Reform. I could include a footnote that notes that Clancy was the first, or among the first, to give it that name, but I'm not sure where I can put that information in the body because there is little verifiable information I could write. Schierbecker (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Should this be the 1st Squadron 17th Cavalry? I admit to knowing almost nothing of formations of the U.S. Army. The source says they were destined for the "17th Cavalry Squadron of the 18th Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg." According to the source this proposed delivery was requested by the 81st Airborne. Schierbecker (talk) 02:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure "stood up" is the right phrase here? I meant stood up as in "activate." wikt:stand up#English
What is the significance of the Vickers/FMC Mk 5 in the table? I would suggest eliminating this column That refers to the Vickers/FMC Mark 5 battle tank listed in the variants section.
Are you sure it was a promissory note? I used the author's (public domain) own words. I'm unsure if there is a better word.
What are "appropriators"? Is this not a common term?
Boelke is a master's thesis. WP:SCHOLARSHIP: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. (Like mine )
Freedman is a War College Individual Study Project, not a thesis
Why is Hunnicut 2015a? There is no other Hunnicut source
Publisher and access dates required for fn 94 and 95
Note that you should only include "This article incorporates text from this source" if it has been cut and pasted.
There are a couple other Hunnicutt's cited. Removed Boelke. Added cites to Bowman, Kendall & Saunder. Everything else you mentioned is done. Schierbecker (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One unreferenced bit in fn 6.
"Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army" source is out of alphabetic order.
As an aside, you don't need to mark a source as "This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain." unless you have actually copied/pasted the text from that source. Hawkeye7(discuss)22:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame we can't tie the vehicle down to being named for John Buford. Buford was one of my childhood heroes.
"In the 1980s, the United States Army began looking for a more capable replacement for the Sheridan. During this time, a string of Army projects to update or replace the Sheridan were begun, but all ended without the Army committing to buy." - citation needed
Are the Armored Gun System and the Assault Gun System different things? It gets a bit confusing with two different things potentially being AGS
"By then, the AGS program had gathered steam due to the successful deployment of Sheridans in Panama and the Gulf War" - why would successful deployment of the Sheridans led to the plan to replace them gathering steam?
check the infobox data against the table. For instance, the infobox says that height was 7 ft 10 inches (94 inches), but the big data table says 100-101 inches
"who privately expressed his irritation to Perry about having learned " - fully introduce Perry here, not in the next paragraph
The weight figures in the infobox don't match with those in the protection section? Level I: up to 39,800 (body) vs 38,800 (IB) Level II: 44,270 (body) vs 44,000 (IB)
"Prototype versions of the AGS gun had a pepperpot muzzle brake which was anticipated would be deleted in the production version" - do the sources indicate why this would be removed?
"The Close Combat Vehicle Light at the National Museum of Military Vehicles in 2020. Photos courtesy: Amazing Ace." - inline external links like here are a no-no
"Prototype versions of the AGS gun had a pepperpot muzzle brake which was anticipated would be deleted in the production version" - do the sources indicate why this would be removed? No, they do not. However the M1128 Mobile Gun System had a problem with blast overpressures developing between the hull and pepperpot muzzle brake. This was solved by adding a metal baffle around the muzzle break.
Are the Armored Gun System and the Assault Gun System different things? It gets a bit confusing with two different things potentially being AGS It does not get much more confusing than this. They are terms for the same concept, not a specific program of record. The infantry school preferred the term "Assault Gun" while the armor school preferred "Armored Gun."Schierbecker (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be worthwhile to clarify that the Armored Gun System and the Assault Gun System are the same thing; most readers won't know necessarily know that. Hog FarmTalk03:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding varying weight claims: Hunnicutt gave combat weight for level 1, while Miller gave all-up weight, which I suppose is different. Hunnicutt gave roll-on/roll-off weight for level 2, while Foss gave all-up weight. Fixed this by giving a range. Schierbecker (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"550 hp (410 kW) at 2400 rpm with JP-8 fuel, and 580 hp (430 kW) at 2400 rpm with DF2 diesel" --> "550 hp (410 kW) at 2,400 rpm with JP-8 fuel, and 580 hp (430 kW) at 2,400 rpm with DF2 diesel"
"This had 65% commonality with the eight-cylinder" Replace % with percent.
"used by the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.[116][3]" Re-order the refs here.
"rounds per minute.[128][70]" Re-order the refs here.
"eliminated to save weight.[126][118]" Same as above.
"were a M240 7.62 mm caliber" Per MOS:NUMNOTES we should try to avoid two of the same numerical formats.
Both 39 and 40 in converts should be rounded in the info table.
"It was armed with a 105 mm low recoil force gun" Compound adjective here.
" was an XM291 120 mm electrothermal-chemical" Per MOS:NUMNOTES we should try to avoid two of the same numerical formats.
"but integrated the 120 mm gun" Compound adjective here.
"A prototype EX35 gun is mounted in the FMC XM4 Armored Gun System (CCVL) turret basket c. 1984" A circa template is needed here.
"An M8 AGS rolls off a C-130 for a platform performance demonstration at Fort Knox circa December 1999" Circa can be shortened and needs a circa template.
"Pre-production unit in level 2 armor circa 1994" Same as above.
"Pre-production unit circa 1994" Same as above.
In the table of the AGS production schedule as of 1995 there's a "nils" and a "0" but why aren't the nils 0s?
"CCVL c. 1992" Circa needs a circa template.
The "Specifications" in the infobox is a bit of a mess can we have some white lines here to separate the different units?
"M35 105 mm caliber soft recoil rifled gun (31 rounds)" Per MOS:NUMNOTES we should try to avoid two of the same numerical formats.
I feel icky converting metric caliber units to imperial. Can we not? I don't know of any sources that describe a 105 mm gun as 4.13386" (4.13") or a 25 mm gun as a 0.984252. There are a few rare exceptions such as the .50 BMG, aka 12.7×99mm NATO.
The reason is that they are not measurements at all, but common names. There's also a practice of changing names but not the actual calibre of the weapon. I think that conversions should be avoided, because it can only mislead readers into thinking that it is an actual measurement, when most of the time it is not. Hawkeye7(discuss)21:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding compound adjectives. I believe "mm" doesn't need to be spelled out per MOS:HYPHEN.
re:"Is there a recent estimate of how much this is?" I think you are asking how much in total was spent on the program. No, I haven't come across that figure. Would love to know. Or do you just want me to adjust for inflation? I can do that. Schierbecker (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
The Epsom riot was an interesting point in history when the frustrations of many soldiers who just wanted to return home after the First World War exploded into violence and left a policeman dead. There were several riots in the UK from Canadians, Australians and Americans who wanted to return, and several in France with Brits wanting to get home and the logistics of moving that many men were not as smooth as they should have been. This went through a rewrite in early 2021, and a run at FAC is envisaged, unless reviewers advise otherwise. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see you here, Schro! Copyedited so let me know any issues, especially BritEng-related. Looks very good prose/structure/detail-wise, I'm just going to take a break now before checking sources and images (unless someone beats me to them) before supporting or opposing (most likely the former)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, None of your copyedits were a problem at all - although you may want to take another spin over it, given the changes made by another editor in the interim! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Gav. I read over the lead again and made one tweak. I've also checked edits since I last went through it and I think it still reads well. The only thing (which I noticed the first time I read it and feel more strongly about now) is that the statement one policeman later described the camp as being "run on very lackadaisical lines" seems unnecessary -- the quote isn't very pithy in itself and the gist of it has been explained/paraphrased in the preceding clause. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @SchroCat: This is a very interesting article and, being fairly local to Epsom, I do have some knowledge of the riot and the events surrounding it. I have given the text a thorough copyedit. There were quite a few very long sentences (and also some very short sentences) which I have reworded. There are a few instances where I felt that the text was unclear and I have left {{clarify}} tags to indicate where this is the case. A few more points:
The article uses the name "Woodcote camp", but the sources that I have access to call it "Woodcote Park camp".
The Google search for "Woodcote camp" brings up 261 hits; a search for "Woodcote Park camp" brings up 5010 hits. I think it's obvious which is the more common.Mertbiol (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Google isn't reliable. Google Books, which I used, is more indicative; Google Scholar has only one additional reference. As neither of the names are the formal name for the place, either will suffice. - SchroCat (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit too much of a copyedit for my liking - and it includes changing punctuation style and comma usage that doesn't need to be changed (and was better in the original). I will put back some of the original work, but try and be sympathetic to your edits too. I'll deal with the above comments shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @SchroCat: Please have a look at these parts of your text:
These two sentences are together in the same paragraph. The first is 56 words long and the second is 47 words long. You might find them easy to understand, because you are familiar. However, someone reading them for the first time is liable to get lost:
Many British veterans returning to Epsom and its environs were annoyed by relationships between local women and the camp's residents, and members of the East Surrey Regiment "begrudged what they perceived to be the disproportionate praise heaped on the Canadian Corps for its capture of Vimy Ridge in 1917", according to the military historian Nikolas Gardner. In early and mid-1919 tensions between the inhabitants of the town and the camp's inmates, including what Gardner describes as "a growing Canadian disregard for the authority of the local police", often manifested itself in violence towards the police if they arrested one of the Canadian soldiers.
You cannot use "either" for one choice out of three options:
The cause of the fight is unclear, but there are three possible versions: either a Canadian private and his wife were assaulted by local men; or a sergeant was with the couple and a fight broke out between the two Canadians; or the private, his wife and a sergeant were assaulted by local men.
Re the second sentence, Fowler allows usage of more than two options. In any case, it’s not right to just delete one of the three explanations. - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: The third explanation is very similar to the third - I was trying to simplify to make it more readable. In any event, regardless of what Fowler says, the convention used by the overwhelming majority of British English speakers is for either to be used with only two options. Mertbiol (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll take Fowler’s word. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘the third is similar to the third’, but there are three different explanations provided. - SchroCat (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One full stop should sort the first para. Your changes altered the meaning at the beginning of the paragraph, which was problematic. SchroCat (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright for Sergeant-thomas-green.jpg states "This image may not have the proper copyright or licensing information, or there is a conflict of license." Please confirm the licensing of the image and transfer it to Wikimedia commons.
@SchroCat: Excellent work. The tags all look good. It seems that the article is not picking up the Wikimedia versions, but I do not believe that is a requirement for A-class so happy to pass. simongraham (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for that - it's much appreciated. As I used the 'transfer' feature to get the images over to Commons, there should be a bot that does the clean up on the duplicate images, so that should be along shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, I think that as a Police Federation source - with access to their records - he is probably OK for this, I've removed him, more under a surfeit of caution than anything else. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was an open question. The link was dead and the archived version told me nothing. But as is, fine. I'm not even going to ask why S has a dot after it and Yorks doesn't. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s fine - he’s probably not the strongest source, and the info is adequately supported by the other references, so it’s no problem. I’ve swapped out S Yorks for South Yorkshire, so that should deal with any issues on shortened versions or full stops. Thanks for the review - much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"In the early months of 1919 the numbers at the camp fluctuated between two and four thousand men (including patients and staff); by mid-June there were between 2,079 and 2,200 occupants" - so is part of this number soldiers awaiting repatriation or is still a hospital camp at this time?
" Between November 1918 and June 1919 Canadian troops rioted in British camps thirteen times" - does this figure include or exclude the Epsom riot? If it includes it, then recommend indicating that, as the current reading would suggest thirteen riots before Epsom
Do the sources indicate what Parson was doing while all the rioting was going on, since he was there and not in the building?
Unfortunately no. I suspect not much, given that any order he gave was unlikely to have been followed with discipline so far gone. - SchroCat (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is note [e] particularly relevant to this article? I probably wouldn't have included it, but it's not going to be a sticking point for me
" and closed the same day with an open verdict" - I think there needs to be some sort of link or gloss for what an open verdict is, as "open verdict" appears to be primarily a thing in the UK (as an American, I had to look it up, and found very little American usage of the term)
"The seven men identified at the inquest appeared at the Surrey Assizes on 22 July" - didn't the inquest only identify six (McAllen/McAllan, McMaster, Masse, Wilkie, Yerex/Verex, and Todd)?
"Canadian military headquarters placed the town off limits to all personnel" --> "Canadian military headquarters placed the town off-limits to all personnel"
Thanks very much - that's very good of you. I've done the appropriate ones and left a question where I'm unsure. Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent whether to use "Woodcote Camp" or "Woodcote camp", at the moment in four uses the article is split two/two.
"..for nearly 25 years, serving first in London, then for eight years.." Per the MOS, "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently."
I guess this distance is based off the sources, but based on the locations in the map provided, they are only actually about 300 metres apart, which is very different. Can you check this out?
Hmmm. Google Maps puts it at just under 500m, which is only a third of a mile, so the source is out a bit. I've removed the distance entirely - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"..wielded by a teenager, James Connors, and.." Why isn't his rank given, when every other soldier is identified as such on the first mention?
"C.A.M.C." per MOS:ACRO, "Note that Wikipedia generally avoids using full point in upper-case acronyms." – Is this any specific reason for using them in this case? The linked article uses "CAMC".
"..was returned to the RAC in.." The abbreviation "RAC" needs to be established in the Background section if it is going to be used here.
Note d says "Some sources, including Morton.." I'd recommend clarifying who Morton is.
The first sentence of the lead says "about 400 Canadian soldiers rioted and attacked", while later in the lead, and then in the body it says between 300 and 800.
"In the ensuing fighting, Allan McMaster, a former blacksmith.." This phrasing gives the impression he was a civilian rather than a soldier; I'd recommend adding his rank.
Overall a really nice article, with only some minor issues raised, some of which are probably more a matter of personal preference. Harrias(he/him) •talk15:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
The first conflict of the First Boer War was a one-sided affair that can barely be termed a battle in terms of the contest. A blasé British commander did not consider the Boers to be able to present a threat to the men of the British Army, and was resoundingly defeated in around 15 minutes. The battle was a taste of what was to come over the following couple of months; a series of humbling defeats for the British.
It's been a while since I've brought an article to ACR; hopefully this one is up to snuff after a GA review from Djmaschek, but as always, I welcome all input. Unless you want to moan about citation numbers being in order, which frankly isn't covered by any part of the MOS I've come across 😂. Harrias(he/him) •talk20:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"According to the British historian Ian Castle, after having fought in the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879, a series of battles against Sekhukhune, and then "tedious periods of garrison duty in isolated posts" had left the 94th Regiment low on morale, with increasing levels of desertion" - maybe this is an ENGVAR issue for me, but this sentence just does not seem grammatical to me
No, that's just badly written. Changed to "According to the British historian Ian Castle, after having fought in the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879, a series of battles against Sekhukhune, and then experienced "tedious periods of garrison duty in isolated posts", the 94th Regiment were low on morale, and facing increasing levels of desertion." How's that? Harrias(he/him) •talk08:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"thought he spotted a group of Boers moving to a farmhouse off the road" - the implication appears to be that the scout had reason to believe this was a hostile force, not a group of civilians. If the sources permit, it might be best to explicitly state that
None of the sources explicitly state that unfortunately; I think in the context the implication in both the sources and the article is reasonably clear, but I can't do more with what I have at the moment. Harrias(he/him) •talk08:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are civilian losses for the British known? Evidently at least Mrs. Fox was hurt
Again, I don't see it explicitly listed anywhere. Duxbury says that "one civilian conductor" is included on the "various monuments". (That reminds me that I should add something about the main monument / grave included in the lead photograph!) Harrias(he/him) •talk08:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing a few Osprey books cited - their American Civil War coverage is often fairly weak. Is Osprey better for British history?
It's clearly written for a general audience, and can simplify things at times, but I've never had any issue with them on British history topics; I've also used them a bit before on English Civil War articles. Harrias(he/him) •talk08:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"was ordered to intercept and stop the British." By whom?
It is never actually explicitly stated in the sources, which I need to resolve in some manner in the body, but is this level of detail required in the lead? Harrias(he/him) •talk12:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The British took heavy casualties and surrendered after about 15 minutes, the majority of their remaining force being captured." If they surrendered after 15 minutes, what remaining force was there to be captured?
I meant those that weren't injured, but I see what you mean. I've changed it to "..the majority of their surviving men being captured." but honestly I'm not keen on the phrasing, I'll probably come back to this. Harrias(he/him) •talk12:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"that became a distinctive feature of the Boers." I think the Boers need some sort of introduction.
Expanded this sentence out to "These settlers, known as Free Burghers, established an independence that became a distinctive feature of their descendants, the Boers." How is that? Harrias(he/him) •talk12:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine.
"as it provided a tactical advantage". Do you mean strategic?
Fine for A class. But for FA I think you need to further help a reader understand why new law might cause large numbers of people to abandon their farms and move. And one assumes that north is a direction taking them outside effective British jurisdiction?
"The British expanded their territory throughout the 19th century" → 'The British expanded their territory in southern Africa throughout the 19th century'.
"he made the decision to recall men from outlying garrisons, and concentrate his strength in Pretoria". Could you mention what force(s) this was, their strength, that they were scattered across the region and why.
I can't find details on their overall strength, though I feel it must exist somewhere in regimental histories, so I'll keep looking. Regards the "why", do you mean why they were garrisoned around the region? Harrias(he/him) •talk13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The garrison comprised the headquarters and two companies of the 94th Regiment of Foot." Do we know numbers?
The end of the paragraph has some figures: "He left roughly 60 men to hold Lydenburg, taking somewhere in the region of 245–270 soldiers" If we add those together, we get roughly 300 to 330, albeit not all of the 94th. Do you feel it needs explicitly adding here too? Harrias(he/him) •talk13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"less than half-distance on their journey". Is that grammatical?
Google seems to only think it is used in motorsports, which is probably why it seemed fine to me. Changed to the much more common "less than halfway through their journey". Harrias(he/him) •talk13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the Boers were actively taking up arms in the area." As opposed to inactively taking up arms?
"trying to agitate local sympathies". Can one agitate a sympathy?
Reworded to "Anstruther had also been warned by apparently friendly Boers that insurgents were trying to turn local sympathies against his progress."Harrias(he/him) •talk20:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if he got promoted to Colonel, that was it. War. Double sigh. Replaced with "further movement towards Pretoria" though that might be a tad repetitive with the later "continue to Pretoria". Harrias(he/him) •talk13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The return shots that they did fire typically went high, over the heads of the Boers." Is it known why this was? (Come to that, how do we know it?)
There were quite a few primary sources for the battle; accounts from both Boers and British soldiers. I've struggled to unpick these; I want to add a bit of detail before a FAC, but it may remain pretty vague. As to why, Duxbury provides this: "Several Boers were emphatic that the British had set their sights to 400 yards and that, when they (the Boers) moved forward, the British failed to re-sight their rifles and that their shots, for the most part, went high over the heads of the Boers. These statements are based on inspection of the rifles captured, and are borne out by Egerton who stated, 'The 94th fought remarkably well, but their fire did not seem to take effect; they did not seem to know the range, and all the officers were down.'(11) In the circumstances it seems to be a reasonable assumption that they failed to adjust their sights." I just didn't know if this was getting a bit too technical for the article. Happy to put it in though. Harrias(he/him) •talk13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely include it.
I've expanded to "The return shots that they did fire typically went high, over the heads of the Boers, which contemporary reports on both sides attributed to the British having their sights set to the wrong distance." Let me know if you think it would benefit from more detail still. Harrias(he/him) •talk19:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would benefit from more detail.
"received five shots to the legs." Suggest "shots" → 'wounds'.
"the British commander". Given "all of the British officers were either killed or seriously wounded, including Anstruther", is it known who that was?
It was Anstruther, despite his injuries. I was trying to avoid sounding repetitive, but I've stated it explicitly now. Harrias(he/him) •talk13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"4 officers and 85 men injured". Suggest "injured" → 'wounded'.
Looking good. Well up to A class, so I am supporting. Not far off FAC class. Just a couple of areas which, IMO, could do with a bit more unpacking - both noted above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Images look good, all licensed and sourced, apart from the PD-100 tag on File:Gevär - Livrustkammaren - 96971.tif (which appears to be a problem with the template they're using for that file). Objects like rifles don't have copyright, so that really ought to go (though, if you can't make the template work correctly, I won't cause a stink!)
Source all appear to be high quality and represent recent scholarship (along with a couple of interesting contemporary newspaper articles
Cheers Parsecboy. As you say, unpicking the template looks more effort than it is worth at the moment. I'll probably have to do it for the FAC, but I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. Effectively at the moment, we have the appropriate license for the photograph (the CC BY-SA), and a superfluous one for the object, so it isn't the end of the world. Harrias(he/him) •talk20:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could have a map of South Africa showing where the places mentioned in the Background are?
For the moment, I've just added a simple locator map into the infobox to show the location of the battle itself in modern South Africa, but I'm working on a era-specific map at the moment, just having some svg wrangles. If you're content for A-class, it will be in place ready for an FA nom. Harrias(he/him) •talk09:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why does note a need to be in a footnote instead of the body?
The native Africans did not fight in the war, so their numbers are an aside, rather than information key to the subject of the article. Harrias(he/him) •talk09:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would mention that Philip Robert Anstruther was the OC of the 94th Foot.
Clarified in the "British troop movement from Lydenburg" section: "On 27 November, the commanding officer of the 94th Regiment—Lieutenant Colonel Philip Robert Anstruther, who was commanding the garrison at Lydenburg—received orders.."
There are some strange turns of phrase: "established an independence", "attributed the 94th Regiment"
I was probably butchering the English language to avoid copying the source or repeating myself. Changed the first to "developed and independence", and the second to "Another historian, G. R. Duxbury, gives slightly different numbers for the 94th Regiment: 6 officers and 230 men" Harrias(he/him) •talk09:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a part of my Roman/Byzantine Emperors project, and I believe it meets the criteria. Previously failed an A-Class, but this was mostly due to my inaction, rather than the article itself. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum17:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can we add the regnal number footnote in the lede as well? And add who Tiberius II was?
Done.
I think we can drop three obscure, niche, mid-19th-century sources as evidence that his name has been misspelled in the past. This is irrelevant for a modern reader.
Have removed, was added by another editor in October.
Please use {{transl|grc|}} for transliterated Greek terms.
Done.
Tiberius was part of an army led by John the Patrician sent by Byzantine Emperor Leontius for the lede, I would omit 'led by John the Patrician', especially since he is redlinked, but also to shorten it to the essentials. Then killed John can simply become 'killed their commander'.
several month one to six months or so is not really 'several', rather 'a few' ;)
Done
The inscription reads dn tiberius pe av. Why is that interesting? The average reader won't even know what these terms mean... Unless you provide the complete inscription, e.g. 'Our Lord Tiberius, Perpetual Augustus', I'd recommend omitting it.
Done
Early life
Given that the origin of his name has been used to speculate as to his origins, I would move the footnote into the main body, explain as much (esp. in respect to Vasiliev's claim) and expand a bit on the issue.
Done
Have done a slight copyedit there. Can you also add separate references for the Germanic origin? Also, the Germanic origin of the name is the traditional version, right? I would clarify this, and add that the dissenting views are from more recent scholars (hence may indeed represent the current common view). Constantine ✍ 13:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added first reference, hunting one down for the traditional bit, which I'm sure is right. So far only Peter Crawford is willing to say such, and I'm sure he fails HQRS, down the line if not immediately. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum15:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Finally tracked down a source (Brandes) Willing to say as much.
Byzantist is slightly archaic, better 'Byzantinist'
Done
Refs #9 and #10 are from the same work. Unless it is conjecture, Kaegi bases his statement on sources, please mention them.
Per WP:SS, I'd say the entire first section, and probably the second one as well, can be omitted entirely as it concerns events that are not necessary to comprehend the subject. Justinian's exile can be mentioned later when he becomes relevant. E.g. 'In 696, the Islamic Umayyad Caliphate, the primary rival of the Byzantine Empire, renewed their attack upon the Byzantine Exarchate of Africa. In the next year, they managed to capture its capital, Carthage. The Byzantine emperor Leontius...' It works fine as an introduction, and does not need the entire back story of Leontius, Justinian II, and the Muslim civil war, with a host of names and dates that are not directly relevant here.
Done.
with the Green faction (one of the Hippodrome factions) close repetition of 'faction'. Perhaps simply 'with the Greens (one of the Hippodrome factions)'?
Done.
Add timeframe for Michael the Syrian
Done.
Don't know about the quote. E.g. Cyprus is not mentioned before, 'Roman lands' would need explanation, etc. I'd recommend simply working into the article, i.e. that Tiberius justified his coup by drawing parallels to Leontius' own deposition of the previous emperor, Justinian II, on account of the latter's responsibility for the disasters in the war against the Umayyads. This way you'd also introduce Justinian II to the reader.
crossing into the mountain passes 'crossing the mountain passes'
Done
which had been underpopulated since much of the populace was moved to the region of Cyzicus under Justinian close repetition of 'populace'/'populated'. And please consistently use 'Justinian II' for the deposed emperor.
Done
moved to Propontis no reason to introduce a new, different term. Stick with Cyzicus.
Done
as well as strengthened Would begin a new sentence here.
Done
separating the Theme of Sicily not entirely certain, and not the common view AFAIK. Cf. Sicily (theme).
No reason to remove, but we need to qualify the statement. I would simply mention that some scholars (or just Treadold?) consider that this separation happened under his watch. Constantine ✍ 13:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
patrician to 'patrikios'
Done
according to Byzantine chronicler Theophanes the Confessor start a new sentence, and give timeframe for Theophanes. I am on the fence about dropping this part entirely, as a) it is likely invented and b) it concerns Philippicus more than Tiberius.
Removed.
Somewhat pedantic, but I wouldn't call Tervel a 'king', rather a 'ruler', or his proper title of khan?
Hi Iazyges, most of the comments have been addressed. Have done some small copyedits, and another read-through now. Some additional comments follow (and see also above for a couple outstanding issues), but I think it is close to passing now.
I think that Gotho-Greek refers specifically to Gothograecia, so should be linked to that.
Done.
Pipe Roman Carthage to simply 'Carthage'.
Done.
Bacharach appears to be no longer used in the article.
Removed.
Can we find a better map (with sources) than File:Central and Eastern Europe around 700 AD.jpg?
"than that he was droungarios" to "than that he was a droungarios"
Done.
"led an army of Slavs and Bulgars" This is a MOS:EGG 'cause people would think they mean the people Bulgars instead of the empire.
Done.
"between August 705 and February 706" Maybe the infobox needs to a note describing this?
Changed to "between August 705 and February 706"
"His body was initially thrown into the sea" Maybe replace sea with the Black Sea might be helpful for the reader?
It's not certain it was the black sea, is the problem. It might have been the sea of Marmara, for instance.
"church on the island of Prote" Which church and was it destroyed by the future wars?
This seems unknown to history, so far as I have found. Would appreciate any insight you have.
"he was a droungarios (a commander of about a thousand men)" Maybe add this in a note?
Do you mean transfer this to a footnote? That hardly seems useful for such a short gloss.
"and declared Apsimar emperor" to "and declared Apsimar as emperor"?
Done
"which forced John to retreat to Crete" to "which forced John to retreat to the island of Crete"
Done.
"allied himself with the Greens" This looks like an EGG?
Not really; the section that the link opened speaks of chariot racing factions, of which the Greens were one. There is no better page for them, unfortunately.
"the city and depose Leontius;[5][11][12][13]" Maybe remove one citation?
Done.
There are four "However"s maybe remove some?
Done.
"of the Anatolian themes.[19][20][21][22]" Remove one citation?
Done.
"al-Malik from reconquering Armenia.[23][20][13]" Re-order the refs here.
Done.
"In 693 Justinian II escaped from Cherson" Link Chreson especially now that people associate it with the city beingcaptured by the Russians not that long ago. It might confuse the reader if you meant another Cherson.
Done.
"sought the support of the Bulgar" MOS:EGG here.
Done.
Add the reigns for Tervel and Busir.
Done.
"to the Kynegion and beheaded.[5][6][25][29]" Remove one citation.
Done.
"Their bodies were initially thrown into the sea" Replace sea with the Black Sea.
Not done per above.
"in a church on the island of Prote" Which church and was it destroyed by the future wars?
See above.
Why is instead of Apsimar his Latin name is been used in the "Names" in the infobox?
Because that was his name as Emperor of the Romans, not Apsimar.
ISBN is not strictly useful given that it's an online journal (and subject to changes in ways that published books are not, which the ISBN is helpful for); to this end, the template doesn't even have one.
Sumner, Graham V. (1976). Issue missing (3) Pages missing (pp. 287-294) No publisher, but location is misleading as it is the Cambridge in Massachusetts. Suggest adding the state. Only journal where you supply an OCLC (I wouldn't bother, although I normally supply an ISSN )
Done.
Treadgold, Warren (1995): Compare with Treadgold, Warren (1997); that one has the publisher correct and the state where Stanford is. (Also: these are the only two references where the later one is listed before the earlier one.)
Done.
Vasilev, Alexander (1980). Publisher missing (University of Wisconsin Press). Should probably supply the state as well as the city. Page number is not required. And it is the only book with an ISBN that also has an OCLC.
The discussion above 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.
The topic of this article is a British punitive expedition against the Basuto people, conducted in revenge for Basuto cattle raiding. A combination of bad coordination between British commanders, Sir George Cathcart's underestimation of his opponents and determined Basuto resistance resulted in a stalemate. While it was just a bleep on the radar for the British, it forms an important part in the in the history of Lesotho.--Catlemur (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have a date for Moshoeshoe's uniting of the chieftainships?
Since it was a continuous process and the information we have is based on oral traditions, I added the approximate date he came to be known as the chief of the Sotho instead of a particular clan.--Catlemur (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A little introduction (perhaps where they were from) would be useful for the Koranna
Done
"75 £" why is the symbol used afterwards? (same with 20,000 £ later on)
Done
Kgosi Sekonyela is only mentioned once, not sure they are a necessary inclusion when the tribe is also linked
Done
Ibid Gert Taaibosch, doesn't seem to be any significance in including the name
"On 13 November, he" new paragraph, so use "Cathcart"
Done
"After some deliberation" was there really such a noticeable period of deliberation? If Moshoeshoe had heard of the result within two days it can't have been that out of the ordinary for a big calculation like that
Done
"march on Thaba Bosiu at 4 a.m. the following day." we haven't had a date in a while, can you add one here so we're sure when Cathcart is marching?
" from the north; rounding up any cattle" I think a comma works better here
Done
"would have to inevitably cross the mountain" well...he could just have continued a long way. Better to explicitly say why he would be better off crossing the mountain
Done
"detachment; totaling under 400 men" again, a comma
Done
"At dawn on 20 December 1852" year repetition probably not needed
Done
"around 2 miles (3.2 km) from Hanger's Drift" considering there's no link or explanation this isn't a very good landmark for the casual reader
"spring east of Tsuitsuidi" ibid
"above the Berea Mission Station" ibid! if these places don't have links or explanations, we don't know where they are!
The Mission Station is actually marked on the map in the infobox. As far as the other locations go I understand that only locals would be able to tell where the landmark is located. Am I to remove any reference to them?--Catlemur (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"They reached the village of Khobane..." still have no idea where the mission station is or what significance it holds, so again this isn't very useful as a reference
"another large scale conflict" what do you mean by another? The Xhosa?
Having fought against the Xhosa, Cathcart didn't want to start a new large scale conflict with the Basuto. As he feared that it will cause a domino effect of forced displacement and tribal warfare.--Catlemur (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"He therefore, ignored his officers' arguments" no need for a comma, and do we know what the opposing arguments were?
"loyalist Boer farmers" there hasn't been any discussion of the Basuto particularly targeting farmers loyal to the British before, or of a more general loyalism?
The Basuto were raiding pretty much everyone. The British were obviously more concerned about the property of loyalist Boers than that of natives or anti-British Boers.--Catlemur (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Give the Free State–Basotho Wars a date
There were three wars, the Basuto won the first one and were almost completely destroyed in the third one. There were interludes of peace between them. So which date should I give?--Catlemur (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Basuto article calls them a protectorate rather than a dominion? (Not sure whether you need to stipulate that it's a "royal" dominion either)
I cannot speak about the accuracy of the Sotho people article since I did not write it, but L. B. Machobane's Government and Change in Lesotho, 1800-1966: A Study of Political Institutions page 41 states: "So, on 12 March 1868, Sir Philip Wodehouse proclaimed Lesotho, anglicised as Basutoland, one of Her Majesty's dominions."--Catlemur (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"according to an apocryphal story in which the"
Done
Is Tylden 1969 actually from the Journal of the Society of Army Historical Research? 1969 was vol. 47 nos. 189–192 rather than vol. 1 no. 5. The source seems to be The South African Military History Society Military History Journal citing work from the aforementioned publication, I'm not too sure where you actually got the referencing information from!
Responding to your comments here to make it all tidy. 1) If Hanger's Drift and Tsuitsuidi aren't on the map and we can't say exactly where they were then including them as reference points does more to confuse readers than to help them. Imo they should be removed. 2) Dating the Free State–Basotho Wars to even something as general as "in the following decade" would work. I've made a few minor edits to the article that hopefully you won't disagree with. I'm happy with the majority of your changes. One final query; where's Monaheng? "south-western Basutoland" may be a good enough description. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing where the 7,000 figure of Basuto and Taung from the infobox is found in the body
No source provides a concrete number about the strength of the Basuto. But we have two separate figures, the force commanded by Molapo and the main Basuto army under Moshoeshoe (Molapo did not rejoin the main force during the battle.): "Molapo had concealed 700 cavalry (including allied Taung) and several hundred infantry above the Berea Mission Station" and "6,000 Basuto cavalry led by Moshoeshoe". The source says several hundred, without specifying how many.--Catlemur (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is Faunce not included in the casualties of 38 killed and 14 wounded?
If Faunce is part of the 38, then that doesn't agree with the battle narrative. Per the battle narrative: 27 of Tottenham's lancers + 5 CMR near the mission + 1 killed while Eyre was moving across difficult terrain + 5 killed when Molapo attacked = 38, which doesn't leave room for Faunce in the 38 killed. Hog FarmTalk22:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I reread the three sources and corrected the mistake so its 27 of Tottenham's lancers + 5 CMR near the mission + 1 killed while Eyre was moving across difficult terrain + 4 killed when Molapo attacked and Faunce = 38. That should be all.--Catlemur (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" The value of the cattle was far lower than the £20,000 goal set by Cathcart, who opted to write off any outstanding claims" - the earlier material in the article suggests that the value to reclaim was determined by head of cattle, but this suggests that Cathcart was at least partially basing the reclamation on total value seized. Should this monetary goal be mentioned in the prelude material, alongside the goal of number of cattle to seize?
The £20,000 goal was set by Cathcart specifically for the excess cattle that were to be sold after the rest had been distributed to other victims (whose claims were still not wholly covered). Since it was not mentioned in any other sources, I assume that it was a last minute decision rather than a goal set before the expedition.--Catlemur (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The Basuto did not allow their chief to travel " - is this a one-time thing, or a general tradition of the Basuto?
I have read about other instances when they attempted to prevent him from traveling but he cursed them off. There were multiple instances of diplomatic delegations being ambushed on their way back from negotiations and then there was also the Piet Retief Delegation massacre, so it was understandable why this happened.--Catlemur (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For immediate locality context, perhaps add a mention to the first part of the lead to the battle being in southern Africa? And again in the first part of the Foundation of the Basuto State section (I'm a bit pedantic when it comes to providing context for readers)
Done
British Cape Colony Sir George Napier,: should be a comma after Colony I think?
Done
In 1848, Cape governor: suggest "In 1848, the new Cape governor..."?
Done
Orange River Sovereignty Major Henry Douglas Warden believed...: should be commas here "..., Major...Warden,...". A similar approach should be taken when Cathcart is first mentioned.
Done
...the number of cattle the Basuto owed to restore.: suggest "the number of cattle the Basuto still needed to restore." Owed doesn't strike me as the best way to describe this.
Done
...Napier numbering 119 men of the CMR and 114 of the 12th Lancers was...: comma after Napier and Lancers
Done
...Lieutenant-Colonel William Eyre, its strength was at approximately...: suggest "Lieutenant-Colonel William Eyre and had a strength of approximately..."
Done
group of 30 lancers: the previous sentence capitalises lancers, needs to be consistent
Done
Cathcart's and Eyre's columns set off at 3 a.m.,...: I'm confused on timing here; the previous paragraph says the British, which I assume mean all three columns, crossed the Caladon at dawn?
They set off from the Platberg camp at 3 am. Since it is located at some distance from the Caledon (as seen on the map), it probably took them some time to reach the river, by then the sun had risen.--Catlemur (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...from Thaba Bosiu at 12 a.m. Facing...: suggest midday rather than 12 a.m.
Done
...who fell back soon afterwards due to the rainstorm. The Basuto returned at 2 p.m.: I assume that this rainstorm is the "heavy rainfall" referred to to the end of the previous paragraph. However, that implies it started raining shortly before 4 p.m., whereas here it seems to have been well before 2 p.m.
@Zawed: I rewrote the first half of the last paragraph. Rain at 2 p.m. is only mentioned by Tylden and makes no sense in hindsight since it would have disrupted operations on the entire battlefield. Saks clearly states that the rainstorm lasted approximately from 4 to 5 p.m. The British saw the massed Basuto after the rainstorm had ended (as stated in all sources) so the 2 p.m. rainstorm seems like a particularly nasty typo. I think I have responded to everything.--Catlemur (talk) 08:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do this at the weekend but for now, I have to say some sources are at least 50 years old. Tylden even has a source of the 30s 80 years ago unless there are no recent sources I recommend replacing them with newer sources. Will do this after these are addressed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Tylden is as far as I understand the preeminent specialist on 19th century Lesotho military history. So the best works on the subject are either citing him or are written by him. See the tribute written to him by the South African Military History Society. Sanders has published books as recently as 2011 but the latest one is on the Basuto Gun War, so its outside of the scope of this article. I couldn't find any more recent sources that cover this topic in detail.--Catlemur (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto here - it is not as if the 1935 source heavily relied upon either. Given the niche subject matter, I wouldn't think there is a copious amount modern work on the topic. Zawed (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Hawkeye says, my understanding is that the criterion requires the most up to date sources available. Ie, we don't penalise an article for not including something that doesn't exist. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it doesn't make to add a source that doesn't exist and I'm fine with that. But if a new source gets published in the near future I still recommend adding it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Link Atmore & Sanders and give it a code like hoi.
The discussion above 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.
Keith Park was one of the more famous New Zealanders of the Second World War, commanding No. 11 Group during the Battle of Britain, and then going on to hold senior roles in the Middle and Far East. He was also a flying ace during the previous world war. The article was in a bit of a sorry state when I started the improvement process last October, but I think it does Park justice now. It has just gone through the GA process, and I hope to get it through to A-class now. Thanks in advance to all those who stop by to take a look. Zawed (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine article on an important individual -- well-researched, measured, and detailed but not overly so. I reviewed for B-Class with GAN in mind, and at GAN with ACR in mind, so apart from a couple of minor tweaks to prose I don't have much to add at his stage, but will be interested in seeing others' comments. Minor points re. infobox:
I don't think we need spouse as not wiki-notable in her own right.
Likewise I don't think number of children is necessary.
This article is in very good shape. I have the following comments:
"Despite his maritime experience, he enlisted in the New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF) on 14 December 1914 and was posted to the Field Artillery" - this reads a bit oddly given that he was an artilleryman before the war so continuing it would seem to be the logical role (also, NZ didn't have a navy at the time)
"The squadron's most successful pilot over the August–September period, he was then sent to England for a rest. This involved instructing Canadian trainee fighter pilots at Hooton Park" - this reads a bit awkwardly by itself, and seems out of place given that the next para is about early 1918?
"Being responsible for the south-eastern England area, including London, No. 11 Group faced the bulk of the Luftwaffe's air strength, at least 1,000 bombers and 400 fighters, during the Battle of Britain. To counter this, at the start of the battle Park had at his disposal 350 fighters across 22 fighter squadrons and just over 550 pilots" - this seems an inaccurate comparison given that the other groups in Fighter Command routinely contributed fighters and aircrew. The current text reinforces the myth that the RAF was greatly outnumbered in the Battle of Britain - the great strength of the British position was that even if No. 11 Group had been clobbered, which never happened, there were lots of other RAF units located behind London.
I have recast the start of the opening paragraph of this section to focus more on the make up of Fighter Command, before delving into the strength of No. 11 Group. I have also added mention of the other groups providing reinforcements as needed. Does this go towards addressing your concerns here? Zawed (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A photo of the Spitfire in the Auckland War Memorial Museum could be added to the 'later life' section, which is currently unillustrated Nick-D (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At time of writing, there are nine instances of the word "enemy" in the article. Every use of that word and the point of view that governs it, with the exception of quotations, must be excoriated to preserve our neutrality. –♠Vamí_IV†♠09:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In considering your concerns, there are 11 instances of enemy in the article but two of these are in quotes, leaving nine to be dealt with as follows:
1st and 2nd instance, both in the Service with No. 48 Squadron section, rewritten
3rd instance in the Fighter Command section. This section deals with pre-war planning against the aerial forces of an unspecified attacking country and the term "enemy" here immediately precedes the term "friendly", i.e. a direct contrast, or an antonym if you like. I think this usage is fine and am surprised you consider it a concern, did you review the context in which these are used or just do a count for the term "enemy"?
4th instance in the Battle of Britain section. Fair enough - I probably used enemy here because I didn't want to use the word German twice in the same sentence. I have deleted the term as it is probably an unnecessary qualifier in the context.
5th to 8th mentions are all in the Malta section, and again I think I have used the term once or twice to avoid repetitive language (German/Italian/Axis). A couple of instances are in the context of tactics/planning so I feel that those usages are OK. Nonetheless I have rephrased all but one instance.
9th mention is in the title of one of the sources, so is not something I can do anything about.
I had thought it wasn't necessary for Luftwaffe, but checking an FA article it was italicised in that. I may be getting mixed up with another German term. Anyhow, done. Zawed (talk) 07:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in, I was told at my current FAC that Luftwaffe is so common it's no longer italicised, and that sounds fair enough to me... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the postwar period, [...] Recommend "interwar period", as in anything involving World War II, "postwar" will mean "after '45".
Attached to the 29th Division as a temporary second lieutenant [...] Was Park's earlier commissioning un-official, or did the transfer to the British Army make it un-official? Can you clarify?
I'm not sure but his commission was with the NZ military and would have been official; he would have relinquished that commission (have added this point to the section) when he transferred to the British military. I suspect that the British wouldn't have wanted a former officer serving in the ranks so would have given him a temporary rank as an interim measure. They may have used "temporary" as a substitute term for "acting rank" or it could be something different, I'm not sure. I don't think it necessary to get into that. Zawed (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After some days without an assignment, he contacted No. 48 Squadron at La Bellevue; [...] If this is a fighter wing, then it's worth mentioning that.
[...] had further success on 21 August, driving two Albatros scouts out of control. The object of a fighter aircraft of course is to destroy other planes and thereby secure control of the air, but I am very uncomfortable with stating the satisfaction of that role in those terms on Wikipedia. It is too cavalier in tone, and too odious a euphemism. Compare: "While flying with Second Lieutenant W. O'Toole while Noss rested,[19] Park drove two Albatros scouts out of control on 21 August."
It resumed operations but it was now involved in less dangerous work, [...] When.
I've rewritten this section a little; digging into the timeline here, it wasn't really a rest as the squadron was still on operations although in a less dangerous role. In light of this my original use of "resumed" is incorrect. Zawed (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In November, he was awarded a French honour, the Croix de guerre, [...] The Frenchness of this award (even with the existence of the Prussian pour le merite) is suggested by its name being in French; it would suffice to say that Park was awarded this medal by the French.
[...] for services in support of the 1st French Army during its time in the Flanders sector. Whose time in the Flanders sector, and (possibly stupid question) is that distinct from the "Arras sector" the squadron was previously stated to be posted to?
Park was able to send one Albatros out of control but his observer's gun jammed, increasing the difficulty of fending off the remainder. One wonders how a jammed gun would make aerial combat easier. Recommend cutting the relevant clause.
He had applied for a permanent commission [...] Recommend "he" changing to "Park" here since the last person mentioned by name is Park's wife, and the preceding paragraph consists of her background.
[...] Park was posted to the Air Defence of Great Britain (ADGB) in August. Could you add the word "command" in here? Without it, this sounds like a think tank or a presentation; it doesn't immediately have a military feel if one is not already aware of what ADGB is.
The ADGB is linked, and there is an explanation in the following sentences as to its function. I have now added mention that it was a RAF command as part of that explanation. Zawed (talk) 08:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A fighter squadron, it operated the Armstrong Whitworth Siskin and Park ensured that it worked extensively, [...] I am confused. What was Park ensuring "worked extensively"? What does "extensively" mean in this context? I am to assume from the rest of the sentence that Park put in long hours testing this plane - in that case, why not delete "extensively" and let the succeeding close communicate that fact?
As part of this he recommended replacing the rifle calibre machine guns on the Hurricane and Spitfire with heavy machine guns, but was overruled. First mention for both aircraft; should be linked.
[...] Park had to assess which raids were a real threat and which were diversionary, intended to draw away RAF fighters. Recommend cutting "diversionary"; redundant.
It was not until 1 August, when Adolf Hitler ordered the invasion of Britain, that the Luftwaffe escalated its aerial operations, with a view to the invasion commencing in late September. As I recall, Operation Sealion was contingent on the Luftwaffe eliminating the RAF, and thus kept getting pushed back.
Shortly after his relief, on 17 December, it was publicly announced that Park had been appointed a Companion of the Order of the Bath. The Order of the Bath is worth a link, I'd think.
RAF South Cerney [...] Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire [...] Gozo and Pantelleria. [...] The Australian Prime Minister, John Curtin, [...] Recommend linking.
In any case, General Douglas MacArthur, the commander of the South West Pacific Area, said it was too late in the war to make such changes. I understand this is MacArthur, but it would be worth noting here that he is American.
[...] which extended from Kandy, where he was initially based until shifting to Singapore, northwest to Quetta, south to the Cocos Islands and Hong Kong to the northeast. This sentence would greatly benefit from links to these places.
Auckland International Airport at Māngere [...] international airport at Mangere [...] The Sir Keith Park Special School in Mangere Spelling inconsistent.
Vami_IV, thank you for the feedback and for the copyedit that you did, catching a few of my typo howlers. I have responded to your comments as above, and with eits to the article. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Ernest Roberts was an up-and-coming South Australian state and federal politician who died young, but the reason I've nominated him for an ACR is his two tours of South Africa with colonial and then Commonwealth mounted troops during the Second Boer War. I haven't done many bios of soldiers from that war, and it was interesting dipping into Murray (the nearest thing to an official history we have) and I'm interested in the perspective of others on the adequacy of the coverage of his war service. This just passed a GAN review by Hog Farm. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is in good shape. I have the following comments:
"Roberts also served tours of duty as an officer" - 'tour of duty' seems an inappropriate term given it's usually applied to modern warfare (and I don't think that the Australian military has ever formally used the term?)
I'm a bit surprised that Craig Wilcox's de-facto official history of the Australian effort in the Boer War hasn't been consulted - it would be more useful than the 1911 work.
Yes, he was. At the Commonwealth Executive Council in Melbourne [8]. His swearing-in was then announced to the Parliament by Fisher [9]. In effect, it was like a Minister without Portfolio. I suspect they weren't paid as a minister though, but haven't been able to confirm that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If sources permit, it would be interesting to discuss in more detail what led to a firebrand leftie going off to fight in what was a controversial colonial war the time, twice. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"part of a force under the overall command of Lieutenant General Sir Ian Hamilton." Hamilton was not promoted to that rank until 1902.
Well, sort of. Yes he was substantively a major general at the time AFAIK, but he was a local (effectively temporary) lieutenant general WEF 9 November 1901 per the London Gazette of 12 November 1901 here: [10]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate links: Charles Kingston (in the lead). "From 1904 to 1908 Roberts edited The Herald, a trade union newspaper published by the ULP." The Herald has already been introduced and linked earlier
Really? It is a bit meatier than I would usually do, but I think it hits all the highlights. The first para is just about his notability, the other three summarise his career. While there isn't a strict proportional requirement in MOS:LEAD, I've trimmed it a little. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He cemented his position at the 1899 election. [...] seat at the 1902 South Australian state election. [...] at the 1913 Australian federal election [...] Why "at" rather than "in"? Is that an Australian English thing?
In the 1893 South Australian colonial election, Roberts unsuccessfully contested the two-member seat of Gladstone in the South Australian House of Assembly as an independent Labor Party candidate, losing narrowly but gaining 30 per cent of the votes. This sentence contains a redundancy, saying Roberts lost the election, and then again and by how much.
It would be good to have an image or quotebox or other such resource to break up the wall of text in #Soldier and journalist.
Added an image of the 4th contingent from the AWM collection. Not confirmed at this atage, but I have suggested to the AWM that Roberts is at right rear. If confirmed, I'll add that detail. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The convoy was regularly sniped at, but the troops, supported by the guns, drove them off each time. Sniped at by whom?
This larger force was also subjected to considerable sniping. "considerable" here is perhaps meaningless, because even one attack by a sniper is worth considering. If the sniping was frequent, say it was frequent.
During the Australian withdrawal from this fight, the Australian medical officer Captain Neville Howse acted with conspicuous gallantry to save a wounded man, and was subsequently awarded the Victoria Cross. What does this have to do with Roberts?
Well, it is a bit of context. Victoria Crosses are pretty rare (rarer even than the MoH), this was the first one ever awarded to an Australian, and Roberts was present at the action. If you think it is too much of a stretch, I'm happy to delete it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, a Boer fellow called Bazendekout presumably commanded this commando. However, I can find no source that states his full name or anything else about him. I've dropped his name. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[...] Bazendekout's commando [...] This should be plural, no?
A "commando" was a type of Boer militia unit. In WWII the British adopted the word commando, which was both a special forces unit of approximately battalion size, and the name for the soldiers and marines that served in them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:E._A._Roberts_(cropped).jpg needs a US tag and info on first publication.
This one was part of a collage of ALP members of the Parliament, and was publicly displayed at Parliament House, Melbourne, and therefore published in 1908 published in the Herald newspaper on Sat 12 Dec 1908. I have tweaked the description and added the US PD tag. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ernest_Roberts'_funeral_procession_in_King_William_St,_Adelaide.jpg needs info on first publication. Ditto File:Unveiling_of_Ernest_Roberts_MP's_grave_at_West_Terrace_Cemetery.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki, where does publication date come into it? Publication date is no longer relevant for Australian images, and they are US-PD if they were Australian-PD in 1996. Hawkeye7(discuss)18:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian tag in use requires that we "provide information of where the image was first published and who created it". Additionally the PD-US-1996 tag includes publication date cut-offs. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikkimaria, I have attempted to find where these last two photos were published, but they don't appear to have been, and the photos of the funeral and unveiling that were published are not available at a good enough quality. I have therefore removed both, leaving the recent pics of the grave. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Unless I've forgotten about one, this will be my first Missouri CSA unit to ACR in over a year. This one was a scrappy sharpshooters unit that stood out somewhat at the Battle of Helena, but played a pretty pedestrian role in the rest of the war.
Yes, I'm aware of a short book on this unit titled "The Bravest of the Brave: Pindall's 9th Missouri Battalion of Sharpshooters" but the publisher of that book has a rather wide quality range (they've published recognized subject-matter expert James McGhee, but also some iffy neo-Confederate stuff) so I've avoided using it. It's held by a few semi-local public libraries so I can get ahold of it if deemed necessary, but I'm not inclined to use it unless source quality can be strongly established. Hog FarmTalk03:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Bearss is an old source from 60 years ago. Is there another recent source that covers his claims? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: - Bearss is still considered to be one of the greater Civil War historians of recent times, so I think citing his work should be fine, especially since one of the two citations is just an attributed estimate of casualties. I've got a more recent book by Bearss (late 80s or early 90s) that also has a chapter on Helena, so I'll try to consult that as well. Hog FarmTalk14:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: - I've swapped out the two 1961 refs with cites to a more recent book by Bearss (which is largely identical to his 1961 journal article). I found a 2017 PhD thesis about civil war Helena that I'll add to the Battle of Helena article when I get a chance, but the thesis has only a single passing mention to this unit. Hog FarmTalk02:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"When a Confederate force attacked the Union-held city" Is there an article for the attack? If so link it.
I've rephrased the sentence this appears in
"commanded by Major Lebbeus A. Pindall" Maybe specify which major article you want to link?
There's no special article on the CSA major, but I can link it to the functionally similar US Army rank if you think that would be an improvement
"The unit suffered 3 casualties during" --> "The unit suffered three casualties during" Per MOS:NUMERAL.
Done
"the French presence in Mexico" Explain a bit more I can assume that some people wouldn't know why they were there.
"commanded by Colonel Simon P. Burns" Link for Burns and link colonel to Confederate colonel page.
There's no Confederate colonel page, and given that it was essentially identical to the main US Army rank, I don't think there will ever be one. I've redlinked Burns - not 100% sold there's enough to base a decent article about him on, but he served two terms in the Texas legislature and was apparently involved in the prosecution of John Wesley Hardin, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt
"back about 0.25 miles (0.40 km)" Round it to 0.4 km?
Done
"was aligned in the front of Parsons' brigade" --> "was aligned in front of Parsons' brigade"?
The best I'm aware of is File:Battle of Pleasant Hill Louisiana.JPG. I can't find anything for Jenkins' Ferry, Helena appears to have been overlooked because of the much more interesting Vicksburg stuff going on nearby and at the same time, and the only one I've turned up for Prairie Grove depicts a Union charge on the complete other side of the battlefield from where this unit was engaged. Hog FarmTalk01:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The unit saw action at the Battle of Prairie Grove in December 1862. Was this its first fight? The infobox and indeed the rest of the lead put the unit in several other scraps.
Rephrased
Opposing the secessionists was the Union Army. Were there US Army garrisons in Arkansas in 1861 and if so, where were they? And why not refer to the US Army as such?
The context of the passage is more Missouri, which had a couple arsenals (big one in St. Louis and a small one in Liberty), but nothing like what was present in say, Texas. I'm a bit hesitant to add too much background detail after it caused problems at a recent FAC
I've gone ahead and changed all references to "Union Army" to "Federal Army" or "Federals". From what I've seen, the use of the term "Union" is starting to fall out of academic usage in order to place less emphasis on the right of secession and more emphasis on the other aspects of the war. At least in what I've read, "Federal" seems to be the next most common term to describe this force. Hog FarmTalk23:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On April 21, 1862, the Confederate States Congress created an authorization for each brigade of infantry to be assigned a battalion of sharpshooters. "created an authorization" sounds... clumsy. "They created the ability [to make]". Condense?
Condensed
On December 6, the battalion, along with the rest of Parsons' brigade and some Arkansas cavalry advanced to Reed's Mountain, which controlled the Cane Hill road. Seems to be a comma missing after "cavalry". To avoid having too many of the things, consider restructuring the sentence.
Rephrased and split into two sentences
He sent Pindall's battalion into the fray. Not long before sundown, the Union forces withdrew off of the mountain in the face of a Confederate attack. In the face of Pindall's attack, or...? Would suffice to just say the Feds withdrew.
Have lopped off everything after "mountain"
The next day, in the Battle of Prairie Grove, [...] Recommend replacing with "On December 7," to match up with the lead and because the previous date that this is referencing is an entire paragraph ago.
Done
In August, Parsons used Pindall's battalion and part of the 10th Missouri Infantry Regiment to force men of a cavalry unit to transfer to an artillery battery. What does this mean? Was there a mutiny?
Kinda, but it's complicated. Have added a touch more detail
[...] during the time the battalion existed. Recommend condensing to "during the battalion's existence."
I know there is a bit of an MOS:ENGVAR thing going on, but I find "Governor of Missouri Claiborne Fox Jackson.." really awkward. Jackson's title would be simply "Governor Claiborne Fox Jackson", so I would prefer "The Governor of Missouri, Claiborne Fox Jackson, .." This would also solve the MOS:SEAOFBLUE issue.
Done
"..do not appear to have been.." As this conveys an opinion, ideally it should be attributed in the prose whose belief it is, to avoid any concerns of WP:OR.
Done
Be consistent whether to use "Parsons' brigade" or "Parsons' brigade".
Should be standardized now
"When the cavalrymen and there officers.." Should be "their", not "there".
Done
"August also saw.." August is inanimate, it can't see anything.
Rephrased
"..was formally designed the.." Should "designed" be "designated" here?
Oops, fixed
"..when news of the surrender of the Confederate forces of Robert E. Lee and Joseph E. Johnston to the east arrived." This would probably be easier to read if arrived was switched earlier in the sentence: "..when news arrived of the surrender of the Confederate forces of Robert E. Lee and Joseph E. Johnston to the east."
Excellent. I removed one further instance of "Parsons's" that I spotted, but otherwise, a really good article, well done. Harrias(he/him) •talk20:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
I recently noticed that Diadumenian, depsite being executed at the ripe old age of nine, has been categorized as a level-five vital article. The reason behind this is beyond me, but nonetheless, I decided to try my best to expand it. I think it is ready for A-class now, and I am more than willing to accomodate suggestions and comments. Iazyges, as the GA nominator, I think you would be interested in seeing how this article progresses. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"File:Macrino, aureo per diadoumeniano cesare, 217-18, 01.JPG" needs a licence for the original work.
Hey Gog, the file on Commons says that the image is an original work. Upon further inspection, it appears that the original photographed coin was overwritten by another user who uploaded a completely different picture. Should I just use a different image where the liscensing is more clear-cut? Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Diadumenian was captured en route in Zeugma, and executed in late June." Any information on who captured him or who ordered his execution?
I can check other sources but present ones give zero extra details.
Unable to find any details.
"His mother was Nonia Celsa, whose name may be fictitious." How can a name be fictitious? I don't think that is what you are trying to communicate.
Added information that the name may have been invented by the Historia Augusta.
And in the main article: "and his possibly fictitious wife Nonia Celsa".
"was elevated to caesar". What role, authority and responsibilities did this entail?
Added gloss that it basically just meant heir at the time, especially given his age.
"a revolt against him". Against him specifically and soley?
Fixed.
"the praetorian fort at Apamea." What are the distinguishing features of a "praetorian" fort?
Source doesn't specify, but I imagine similar to the Castra Praetoria of Rome. I will double check.
Unable to find just about any details on this, as well.
I would assume that it was either the military capital of a praetorian prefecture or a superior fort maintained by a praetor. If you can't source a meaning I suggest you drop that word.
"at the Battle of Antioch, Macrinus fled north to the Bosporus". The Bosporus is not north of Antioch.
Clarified that he fled north, and then to the Bosporus.
"quickly declared support for Elagabalus, declaring the former emperors". Would it be possible to avoid declared and declaring in the space of five words?
Done.
"in an attempt to wipe all traces of Diadumenian and his father". "wipe"? Or 'wipe out'?
Done.
"although less than the amount struck for his father." Coins are discrete → 'fewer then the number ...'
"a relative of Caracalla through his mother, Julia Soaemias, who was Caracalla's cousin." No need to say that he was both a relative of Caracalla and a cousin in the same sentence. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - not seeing anything to complain about. Bunson p. 130 apparently claims that the Historia Augusta says Diadumenian was a tyrant, but given that that seems to be the sole source and the HA is largely a load of crap, I think that can be safely ignored. Hog FarmTalk03:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
I believe that this article, if promoted, will be the first American Civil War tinclad to get to A-Class. Marmora was one of the better documented tinclads, but even with that, a few stretches of her service history are more sketchily documented. The two most significant points in her service history are more lowlights than highlights: being present when the ironclad Cairo placed itself on top of two naval mines in December 1862 and torching two settlements in Arkansas in June 1863. She ended up have more log extracts published in the Official Records than any other tinclad. Hog FarmTalk04:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware that we ever fielded "tinclads". My comments:
In line with this being a tinclad, perhaps mention in the lede that the ship was converted from being a typical paddle steamer into a tinclad or otherwise was armored when the US Navy acquired it.
I've noted this in the lead
Was James McDonald the original owner, or was he just the operator with some corporate owner? It's not clear who the US Navy bought her from.
DANFS has "Brenan, Nelson, and McDonell", ORN 1921 has "C. L. Brennan, William Nelson, and James McDonell". Neither says who these figures are. I think there was something in Smith's footnotes about this, but I'll need to get back to the library to consult Smith.
Along with USS Signal, Marmora was one of the first purpose-converted tinclads in the Union Navy. I think it's implied that the ship was supposed to be used for transporting troops and conducting littoral operations, but this is not made explicitly clear, so it would help to clarify what its "purpose" was.
The scouting upriver began at about 10:00 am, and around noon, encountered Confederate cavalry and a picket station. This seems to be missing a noun or a pronoun.
Corrected
None of the crew of Cairo were killed, and they were picked up by the other Union vessels. Is it known if that explicitly included the Marmora?
@Indy beetle: - I visited the library at Wilson's Creek National Battlefield today, and found that Smith also has Brennan, Nelson, and McDonnell, so I've included those names. Unfortunately, none of the sources I've seen on this provide any details as to who those people are and what their relationship to McDonald was. Hog FarmTalk20:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You use "it" as opposed to "she/her" only twice in the article, I would suggest converting those examples to the feminine as well for consistency's sake
Rephrased both of the instances
Unless I've missed it, the main text never explicitly mentions the American Civil War
Added a brief bit
"She was assigned the identification number 2" new paragraph, suggest beginning with Marmora
Done
"due to low water levels" The reason for this isn't made obvious. I assume it was for the purpose of improved vision?
"to Walke's main force at around 4:00 pm" ?
Done
"when Cairo sunk on December 12" sank
Fixed. In southwest Missouri, we say "sunk" instead of "sank" in that context
"arrived in early December" clarify where
Clarified
"and as a result was arrested." did they use the overseer to locate the mines or something?
It doesn't seem so - Tomblin doesn't elaborate much, and while Bearss provides a quote that the African-American had said the overseer was paid $ 500 for services in pulling off the torpedoes, I'm not sure what "pulling off the torpedoes" means, and Bearss's work seems to be the only place on the internet that exact quote is found. Hog FarmTalk03:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The relation between Chickasaw Bluff and Marmora fighting at Drumgould's Bluff could be made clearer
Have clarified
"The morning," something is missing here
Added "next"
"began that movement that same day." what movement, where? The next sentence describes Marmora only planning to move upriver days later
Clarified
One gets the feeling that mention of the Mississippi River Squadron could come a bit earlier. Is Marmora part of it or just working alongside it?
I've added a gloss for the Mississippi Squadron earlier in the article, so hopefully the nature of this is clearer.
"left Helena that day"...to return to the expedition?
Reworded. The sources frankly aren't very helpful for the Yazoo Pass activities
The modern view image caption seems to suggest that Marmora's attack on Eunice caused the permanent destruction of the town, which could be made clearer in the main text
Clarified using Bragg 1977
What happened to the two Confederate gunboats on the Little Red?
Added
"while the Red River campaign was ongoing elsewhere" why is this useful? Wording suggests that Marmora only moved to fighting illegal trading after this other campaign finished?
The two don't seem to be related, so I've remove any reference to the Red River Campaign.
@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - I think I'm going to need to take another trip to Wilson's Creek's Civil War library to get ahold of Smith's recent work that has a chapter on the Yazoo Pass Expedition. I've found Smith's multiple books on the tinclads to be about 75% redundant to each other (with some passages identical in both his main book on tinclads and his recent After Vicksburg, but Google books preview suggests that the Yazoo one does contain some different information. I'll also need to consult Smith 2010a for the low water levels thing - Tomblin doesn't mention it, and Bearss doesn't say why that was going on. It'll be next Saturday at the soonest that my schedule and the library's operating hours overlap. Hog FarmTalk04:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - sorry for yet another ping. I've been able to revamp the Yazoo Pass stuff with Smith's Yazoo work, and have addressed everything so far except for the low water one, as the sources just aren't specific on this, I guess assuming that most readers will get the implication of dodging snags and sandbars. Hog FarmTalk22:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"present when the fort surrendered on January 11" I think this is MOS:EGG.
Rephrased
"She was also known as the Marmora No. 2" Why isn't this then included in the lead?
Based on my reading of MOS:ALTNAME, I don't think this is required. She's almost never referred to as "Marmora No. 2" in the sources, so I don't think it would be overly helpful to clutter the lead with that fact
"Marmora had a tonnage of 207 tons" Which tons?
Can't clearly state which measurement. Sources don't specify, and IIRC naval and merchant ships of the time had different tonnage measurements. Since Marmora was both a merchant and a military ship, it's not clear what the measurement should be
"at a cost of $21,000" Do you know how much this is in 2023?
Added a template - the most recent numbers available are for 2021
"to not open a court of inquiry against" MOS:EGG here.
I tend to disagree on this - "court of inquiry" is exactly how these proceedings are generally referred to in the relevant sources
"Marmora spent part of December 29, on another" --> "Marmora spent part of that day, on another"
Done
"Yazoo Pass" Link?
There isn't one, and I don't think there ever will be. I can gloss this in a single-sentence footnote if you think it would be helpful
If it doesn't then a small note won't about this won't hurt right?
"The morning of June 16 saw a combined" --> "The morning of June 16, saw a combined"
Done
"division of cavalry on August 9 at Clarendon, Arkansas" --> "division of cavalry on August 9, at Clarendon, Arkansas"
Done
"on an expedition beginning on August 12 to locate" Same as above.
Done
"she captured the two Confederate gunboats" Which boats?
I've removed "the" - I don't think it's worth getting into too much detail on these vessels, as they didn't directly affect Marmora
Well I assumed that most readers probably would ask the same question as I did. I don't necessarily think it is needed but I think it is handy for extra info to the reader. If they're unknown then I'm okay with how it currently is.
"on February 8 and occupying" --> "on February 8, and occupying"
Done
"reported as of May 17 to be patrolling" Same as above.
Done
"reported on September 13 that" Same as above.
Done
"between Napoleon and Gaines Landing" Areas? like cities and towns?
@CPA-5: - I'm not entirely for sure what change needs to be made here. Napoleon is linked in the prior paragraph, and Gaines Landing is briefly explained earlier in the article when Marmora torches it Hog FarmTalk01:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After double checking you're right but maybe add river port before Napoleon's first time it got mentioned?
"sold to D. D. Barr for $8,650" Do you know how much this is today?
Done, but the inflationary values are only calculated through 2021
"had required $15,107.40" Same as above.
Ditto as above
The "Retrieved"s in the refs have dd/mm/yyyy dates while dates are in mm/dd/yyyy?
Should be resolved
"207 tons" in the infobox maybe convert and which tons is this?
@CPA-5: I've added a statement that Napoleon was a river town, have added a brief footnote on Yazoo Pass, and have added the names of the two Confederate vessels (link for one, the other is probably non-notable). Hog FarmTalk15:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because while it is short, I belive that Wikipedia's biography on Christopher Lekapenos is comprehensive enough, given the limited amount of sources we have extant. This is my first A-class review, so please bear with me; I am ready to make adjustments to the article according to everyone's comments! Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This looks to me more like your run-of-the-mill GA article to me - and the Bot agrees with me. Nonetheless, we can proceed.
I think I've taken care of these image issues; I'll take care of the source review sometime tomorrow. Please let me know if the image review is not yet satisfied. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Hawkeye7. I think I've addressed all your comments, save for two that I don't quite understand. Could you please specify what you mean on your first and third comments? I apologize for any inconvenience. Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. fn 1 read:
{{Cite journal|last=Gratziou|first=Olga|date=1997|title=Evidence on the Users of the Zonaras Codex at Modena|journal=Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας|volume=19|issue=5–6|page=39–62 (48)|issn=2241-2190|doi=10.12681/dchae.1162|doi-access=free|language=el|ref=CITEREFGratziou1997}}
This created a warning message that the ref card was already the default (if you have the appropriate warnings switched on):
{{Cite journal|last=Gratziou|first=Olga|date=1997|title=Evidence on the Users of the Zonaras Codex at Modena|journal=Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας|volume=19|issue=5–6|page=39–62 (48)|issn=2241-2190|doi=10.12681/dchae.1162|doi-access=free|language=el}}
Please excuse my ignorance on the topic. So Christopher was co-emperor under Romanos I Lekapenos, right? Is there anyway to make this seniority clearer in the infobox? At the moment, it appears that they were all of the same stature, though maybe that is true? Also, what is the rationale for not including his predecessor(s) and successor(s) in the IB? Aza24 (talk)09:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24, I have made edits to the infobox according to your comment. Please let me know what you think. As a side note: if anyone thinks that it could benefit from a little collapsing, I can do that too. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24 @Unlimitedlead I have a suggestion, feel free to disagree. Right now I feel the infobox has too many repeated names (I assume that was the reason the succession section was originally omitted). Maybe the succession title could be changed to "Byzantine co-emperor (under Romanos I)", similar to Theodosius (son of Maurice), with the rest of co-emperors listed below. That way the seniority of Romanos is made clear and there is no need to repeat the names; also the lead already explains that Constantine and Stephen continued to be emperors after him. Tintero21 (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"after Romanos assumed the position of basileopator." This is the English language Wikipedia.
"Romanos, in order to give his family precedence over the Macedonian line, raised Christopher to co-emperor". Mention that Romanos had become emperor, and either briefly mention what the Macedonian line was and why one might want precedence over it, or drop that bit.
"his brothers overthrew and exiled his father". "his" → 'their'.
"the wealthy patrikios Niketas". A reader should not need a translation service.
Delete "Furthermore".
"in 924, Christopher's younger brothers Stephen and Constantine had also been crowned as co-emperors". Any reason why this couldn't be mentioned in chronological order?
"The motive behind this". Behind what? The banishment?
Delete "In any event".
'who shed tears "like the Egyptians"'. The MoS states "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
The sources I am using do not attribute the quote to anyone in particular. @Iazyges, do you have any idea where the quote is from?
"After Christopher's death, he was succeeded by" → 'Christopher was succeeded by'.
"forcing him to live in a monastery on Prince's Islands". I assume that he only lived on one of the Islands? And is it known where they were located?
The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium says that Romanos died on the island of Prote. Once of the Prince's Islands, Kınalıada, is described as "(meaning "Henna Island" in Turkish, named after the colour of its earth; Greek: Πρώτη, romanized: Prōtē, "First")" on Wikipedia. This may be the same island, but nothing is conclusive.
Since we don't know definitively which island is being talked about, is the current state of the sentence alright? I'll continue digging, of course, but I don't think I'll find anything. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Irene's marriage. It may be worth mentioning that it was highly unusual for an imperial princess to marry outside the Empire - it hadn't happened for 500 years.
Norwich writes well of Christopher's abilities. Unlike those of his brothers. Worth mentioning?
I apologize for asking this, but who is Norwich? I don't see that name among the sources.
Disclaimer: as the bulk of the text is in essence the same article I wrote in 2010, there is a slight conflict of interest in reviewing this. I will limit myself to comments and endorsement in prose only, as well as the content and sourcing of the parts that were added after 2010.
Why Eastern Roman Empire? WP:COMMONNAME and the rest of the article suggest using 'Byzantine' consistently
over the Macedonian line 'over Constantine VII's Macedonian line'
'patrician' for 'patrikios' is problematic; it would be understood by an English-speaker as indicating noble descent and membership of a patrician class, but here it is simply a title in the imperial hierarchy, one could be born a peasant and become a patrikios (and this did indeed happen often). I would suggest to simply rephrase this as 'of Niketas, a wealthy Slav from the Peloponnese who held the high court rank of patrikios' or similar.
When Romanos succeeded in having his daughter Helena Lekapene married to the young emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos in spring 919 and assumed the role of guardian of the emperor with the title basileopator, Christopher succeeded him in his post as megas hetaireiarches, commander of the palace guard run-on sentences. I would suggest splitting after 'basileopator', and starting with 'In 919, Romanos...'. Also, replace 'young' with the precise age of Constantine VII
Add that Romanos also raised his wife to the imperial rank of Augusta after mentioning his own coronation.
I have stated my opposition to using Norwich in previous reviews. I won't require removing his assessment, as it sort of fits with the image the sources portray, but would feel better if other sources could be used instead.
It was added at suggestion of Gog; I have tended to eschew Norwich since you made the recommendation to do so, but I think the summary is useful, and he isn't relied upon other than that. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum14:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prince's Islands -> 'Princes' Islands', and specifically Prote, IIRC.
Done.
The reference for Lilie is incorrect: it is not the Prosopography of the Byzantine World, but the Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit, and not Konstantinos, but Christophoros. I suggest using the template:Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit here, and strongly recommend including the source in the article.
@Cplakidas @Iazyges I have taken care of the first five comments (except that I was only able to specify that Constantine was a teenager at the time). Unfortunately, I am too occupied to deal with the rest of your points in a timely manner. If Iazyges likewise is too busy, I will do it by sometime next week, but until then, I apologize for not being avaliable here. Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Unlimitedlead and Iazyges: the 'lang' template for transliterated Greek terms is simply incorrect. 'Patrikios' is not in the Greek language, it is transliterated from the Greek language. Will move to support now, but please fix this. Constantine ✍ 13:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Already before his father's rise to power, he had been married to Sophia, the daughter of Niketas, a wealthy Slav from the Peloponnese who held the high court rank of patrikios. Awkward
over Constantine VII's Macedonian line to which Constantine belonged so's this
The discussion above 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.
After Harry Crerar comes Monty's other army commander: Miles Dempsey.* Dempsey is "a shadowy figure and a general almost completely unknown to the general public". I overhauled the article in 2021. A curious fact is that all four of the 21st Army Group's British corps commanders had commanded a corps before he had; but John Crocker and Brian Horrocks had been wounded, Richard O'Connor had been captured, and Neil Ritchie had been sacked after losing the Battle of Gazala.
Made a few small tweaks but seems pretty good. Re the above comment, I don't think Ritchie had directly commanded a corps before Dempsey - he was briefly a division commander, then a senior staff officer in the Middle East, then GOC Eighth Army. He was then demoted to division command, then promoted to corps command after Dempsey had reached that level.
I remember some comment to the effect that Monty treated Dempsey like a corps commander which might be worth including if it can be traced. It might be in Carlo d'Este "Decision in Normandy" or Nigel Hamilton's Monty biog, neither of which I've read in more than 30 years. My view is that their relationship in 1944-5 was a little like that of Grant and Meade (commander of the enormous Army of the Potomac) in 1864-5, but we can't really put that in the article.Paulturtle (talk) 04:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"He also attended Officers' Training Corps (OTC) camp at Rugeley with the rank of sergeant." Strange way to word it. Unless I've misread, would be better as "He joined Rugeley Officers' Training Corps, reaching the rank of sergeant by 1914" or something along those lines. You don't need the acronym because you don't mention it again
I understand the need for some context, but is James Welch really necessary? Would be more useful to describe what these "attacks near Miraumont and then Oppy" were. Don't need the VC acronym either way as you don't mention it again
Similar comment as above with MC acronym - can you say for what action/period he got the MC as well?
Y Deleted. Unfortunately, his was one of a great many military crosses awarded in a general issue at the end of the war, so not for any specific action. Hawkeye7(discuss)23:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"His fellow students..." this begins a rather humongous list of British Army officers, most of which I assume won't be mentioned again here and whose significance is, in a nutshell, "they were at college the same time he was". Suggest paring down the list to those most significant or that Dempsey would later work with
"became responsible for the careers of all officers below the rank of colonel" not how I would describe his role, sounds like he was babysitting them! Suggest elaborating on the Military Secretary's role in appointments, promotion, etc, to make Dempsey's role clearer
"Soon after, Franklyn was replaced by Berney-Ficklin." this isn't a unit history, why is this useful? Dempsey isn't even there for Berney-Ficklin's command!
What's your process behind naming units? You've got "46th Division" instead of "46th Infantry Division" (while the unit article uses the latter) but in the same sentence use "42nd (East Lancashire) Infantry Division"
Y Changed to 46th Infantry Division. Some divisions had territorial titles and some not.
You've already introduced "Brigadier Maurice Chilton" in the long list of college names earlier on, so either remove him from that or shorten the format here
"Relief of a corps commander..." the following paragraph seems only loosely related to Dempsey. I was going to suggest that it could be simplified into a sentence saying that the resulting changes meant that 3 of the 4 British corps commanders had commanded for longer than Dempsey, but is any of that really relevant? I would be tempted to call it trivia. Moving straight from Montgomery protecting him after Goodwood to the Horrocks quote would still work
Reading all these corps names makes me think that back when Dempsey is given command of Second Army would be a good time to actually list exactly what corps it was made up of
I'm not sure if this is something with a readily available source, but I've read somewhere that Dempsey's knighthood was the first to a general in the field for 200 years or something of the like, and that Dempsey was incredibly proud of that. Don't know if you can find anything about it though..!
I've explained why Dempsey was so proud (his ancestor) and it's the one thing people who have heard of Dempsey invariable know about him. Unfortunately, Wikipedians have pointed out that it isn't true. Hawkeye7(discuss)10:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"in the field with his award of the" would be better as "in the field as a..."
Duplicated links: Military Cross in the lede, Royal Berkshire Regiment, 6th Brigade, Western Front, acting rank, staff (military), II Corps, mentioned in dispatches, Richard O'Conner, George Hopkinson, Neil Ritchie, George Erskine, Sidney Kirkman, colonel, brigadier, 1st Airborne Division, Battle for Caen, VIII Corps
The lede comment that "he remains less well known than Montgomery or subordinates like Brian Horrocks and Richard O'Connor" is not specifically mentioned in the main text
Images are fine - either UK military works with the Crown Copyright expired or a wikipedian photograph of a stained glass window that's ok with freedom of panorama for the UK. Hog FarmTalk00:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"handed over to Brian Horrocks"; "handing over again to Brian Horrocks": these are the second and third reference to Horrocks, so we can drop "Brian" on both
"re-roled" doesn't appear in the OED (and "roled" only in connection with computer programming). "reassigned" works in British English and avoids jargon
Y "Re-assigned" would be incorrect though. It's in the Wiktionary, so
"Unlike a division, which had a set structure, a corps was ": had or has/was or is? Has used changed over time?
Y Yes. The corps is as before, but the 21st century division is not as set as in the First or Second World Wars. Since there are so few of them, they tend to have their own special TOE, although standard tables still exist. But the main reason was to keep the article grammar consistently in the past tense. Hawkeye7(discuss)21:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"was a headquarters,[50] because": the comma doesn't work there – it acts as a stumbling block
Hey Hawkeye, I did promise I'd review this so sorry I'm late!
Dempsey was educated at Shrewsbury School, entering there in 1911, where he captained the first eleven cricket team in the 1914 season when they did not lose a match. Bit of a run-on sentence.
He was also a school and house monitor, and played in the second eleven football team. He also attended Officers' Training Corps three consecutive sentences starting "he also" or "he was also".
The battalion, although successful, suffered heavy casualties, including eight officers, and was relieved in the line and saw little further fighting that year another run-on sentence.
In October 1938 Dempsey's battalion moved to Blackdown Army Camp The subsection is titled "Belgium and France" but Blackdown is in Surrey; maybe specify that?
The brigade formed part of Major-General Harold Franklyn's 5th Division, although the division was still not fully formed and so the brigade was sent to France as an independent formation two months before, and had spent most of its time on guard duties in the BEF's rear areas. Run-on sentence.
In Sicily and Italy, Montgomery's faith in Dempsey had proved justified If this is from the source, it needs attributing; in Wikipedia's voice it's editorialising
This prompted Montgomery, when he left Italy at the end of 1943 to take command of the 21st Army Group for the forthcoming D-Day landings, to select Dempsey to command the Second Army, the main British force involved (although it also included Canadian Army units). Bit of a complicated sentence.
If the source says "there was no denying that Goodwood had been oversold", then you can say "According to Reliable Source...<ref>Source, Reliable (2023)</ref>" because "no denying" is editorialising and doesn't belong in Wikipedia's voice. But "Dempsey oversold Goodwood" would be simpler. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?14:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This meant that three of the four British corps commanders in the 21st Army Group had commanded a corps before Dempsey had, but Horrocks (XXX Corps) and John Crocker (I Corps) had been wounded, O'Connor (VIII Corps) had been a prisoner of war; the fourth, Ritchie (XII Corps), had been commander of Eighth Army before being demoted after losing the Battle of Gazala in June 1942. Not sure how this is relevant to Dempsey.
The discussion above 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.
Yes. Changed to "are". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Removed –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Now cited in the lead, but still not in the body. Needs to be repeated in the body. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Done
. See "Licencing" in File:C. Caecilius Metellus Caprarius, denarius, 125 BC, RRC 269-1.jpg for an example. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AGalley.jpg&diff=806747805&oldid=765219252){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://images.findagrave.com/photos/2012/174/87440886_134046870510.jpg){kind=link}
,_Death_of_Anbakh_(verso),_Folio_from_a_Tarikh-I_Alfi_Manuscript_LACMA_M.78.9.4_(1_of_2).jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
