Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2014/Failed

Failed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

No consensus to promote at this time - Ian Rose (talk) MilHistBot (talk) 04:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Runaway Scrape

Nominator(s): Maile66 (talk)

Runaway Scrape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Runaway Scrape/archive1

I completely rewrote this article from scratch, because of concerns expressed on the talk page thread. Now I would like to see if this passes A-class muster. This is an important aspect of Texas history, but I think it is probably not known to many outside of Texas. Some notes on terminology used: In Sam Houston's time, it was correct to say "Texas", but anyone who lived there was referred to as "Texian" with the "i". I have used the American plural of "cannons" instead of "cannon" when referring to two of them. — Maile (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, just a couple of minor comments from me at this time. I made a few c/e tweaks also: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• in the Battle of Gonzales section, there is a dab link to "John Henry Moore" that should probably be repointed;

Taken care of. — Maile (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• is there a reference/citation that could be added for this: "However, Houston had no doubt that Fannin's company were taken as prisoners"?

Reworded and cited. — Maile (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• in the Twin sisters artillery section, this appears to be a sentence fragment: "to prevent the Mexican army from crossing". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Oops! Removed. — Maile (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy edits also. — Maile (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• "twelve hundred fifty to fifteen hundred" --> I think this should be presented as "1,250 to 1,500" per WP:NUMERAL;

Corrected. — Maile (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• I think "File:Braches House and Sam Houston Oak.JPG" and "File:Twin Sisters, San Jacinto.jpg" will need a US freedom of panorama licence/tag added to the image description page. More information can be found here: [1]
• "File:Come And Take It Mural.jpg": not sure about the licence on this one. It seems to be stating it is PD because it was published before 1923, but from what I can tell it was published in 1938 (see the inscription on the bottom right hand corner). Are we certain it is PD? Can you please check this licencing and adjust if appropriate? AustralianRupert (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed the images altogether. I know nothing about images. The mural is hanging in a museum in Gonzales, and I think you are correct in questioning that date - it does say 1938. The tree is just a tree that's been there for more than a hundred years, so I'm not sure why it needs a tag. And the cannons are replicas, but I don't know when they were installed. But I take you at your word that you know what you are talking about. It was easier to just remove the images than for me to try and figure it out. — Maile (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I think you mean the house, not the tree, is the need for the tag. Taken care of. Now that this has come up, I bet a lot of NRHP photos don't have that tag. — Maile (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Howcheng, the Twin Sisters cannons was uploaded at Commons by you, and has an OTRS tag under "Permission". Can you please comment here as to the licensing? — Maile (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I am no longer on the OTRS team, but IIRC the photographer Ernest Mettendorf sent in a good number of photographs, all of them released to the public domain. —howcheng {chat} 05:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. AustralianRupert, as instructed on the image "Permission" line, I have posted an inquiry on the OTRS noticeboard Here. Will let you know the response. Thank you for being so thorough on the images. — Maile (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• AustralianRupert, per Commons OTRS Noticeboard, the Twin Sisters image is now nominated for deletion at Commons. All issues you mentioned so far have been taken care of. Thanks for being diligent about this. — Maile (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Not quite the result I was hoping for, but thanks for following it up. I've added my support now. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It wasn't the result I wanted, either. I sure did like the image of the Twin Sisters. — Maile (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The deletion request is incorrect. US copyright law does not apply to the design of utilitarian items (see Commons:COM:UA). —howcheng {chat} 08:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow! You are on the ball, Howcheng. I have posted on the Deletion Request page. Hopefully, we can keep the image and stick it back in the article. — Maile (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• AustralianRupert, Howcheng and Lupo I have a question about a different image since we had to delete a 1938 museum banner from the Gonzales section of the article. Over on Commons is C:File:Gonzales cannon 2005.jpg. Now, I know this cannon has to be a reproduction because the original was most likely melted down by Santa Anna at the Alamo. However, over at Deletion requests/File:Twin Sisters, San Jacinto.jpg. Lupo makes the argument that a replica does not create a new copyright. Is it possible we could use this image of the Gonzales cannon in the article in the section re the Battle of Gonzales? — Maile (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The image description page states that the cannon is indeed the original, but even if it were not, the same logic applies. So yes, you can go for it. —howcheng {chat} 23:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I added it. I figure the photographer saw something at the Gonzales Memorial Museum that says it is the original brass cannon. In reality, it went to the Alamo and Santa Anna melted down all brass found inside the mission after the battle. There's no way to prove either situation. Either way, thanks for letting me know I can use the image. — Maile (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• AustralianRupert, The Twin Sisters image is back in the article. The decision on Commons was "Keep" and it's properly licensed. — Maile (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • G'day, that's good to hear. I still believe that it needs a FOP licence due to the building in the background, though. I'm not going to harp on about it, though, but please note that the issue of a FOP licence may be raised if you take this to FAC. Anyway, I will leave it up to you. Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. I just stuck the FoP-US tag on the image at Commons. Seems like a good idea. — Maile (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• AustralianRupert, I would like to withdraw this article from A-class review at this time. Close it down now, please. I see nothing in the instructions about how to withdraw the nomination, but that's what I'm doing. There is a valid statement on the article's talk page about not enough emphasis on the civilian side. However, I do not have access to the book mentioned, nor am I ever going to have access to that book. But this isn't going to pass A-class because of that. Thanks for your help. — Maile (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • G'day, that is something that the Milhist co-ordinators do. I will ping them now and see if someone can close it for you: @WP:MILHIST coordinators: can someone please close this as per the nominator's request? Thanks, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

---

No consensus to promote at this time - Peacemaker67 (talk) MilHistBot (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

M14 Half-track

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (talk)

M14 Half-track (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because this article meets all standards for A class and even though it is only B class I think it can make it past inspection.Tomandjerry211 (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

No consensus to promote at this time - Ian Rose (talk) MilHistBot (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Angevin kings of England

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I have improved it as far as I think I can without feedback and would like to move it forwards towards FAC.

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose at this stage:

• In process/legal terms, when you're using material from other Wiki articles (as in this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Angevins&diff=612779810&oldid=612305548) it is important that the source articles are noted, so that the attribution to the original editors is retained (this is a key part of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License).

Can you give me a bit of help on this one @Hchc2009: - what is the best method of doing this? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

There's some formal guidance somewhere (which I can never find...!), but I think that the way that SabreBD did it in a note in England in the Late Middle Ages's talk page might be fine. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Some glitches have appeared with the editing and the cut and pasting, e.g.

• "Eighteenth-century historian David Hume wrote that the Angevins were pivotal in creating a genuinely English monarchy and, ultimately, a unified Britain" - the cited source doesn't say the Angevins, but simply talks about Henry II.

• DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Henry's role in Thomas Becket's death and his disputes with the French were considered praiseworthy by contemporary Protestant historians." - there were no Protestant historians at the time...! The original article had this placed in the 18th century.

• Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Some of the bibliography still has the original alphanumeric lettering in from the source article, e.g. "Gillingham, John (2007a)" - if you're only using one item by Gillingham in 2007, though, you don't need the "a", it can just be "2007",

• DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think the two books by Turner are the same volume, by the way, just republished by different publishing houses.

• DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Generally, I'm not convinced that the article covers the core issues around the Angevin kings. The "Angevin empire" is mentioned occasionally, but never really explained; the unusual circumstances of having a sequence of monarchs whose ancestral home was in Anjou, and lived much of their lives on the continent, travelling around a vast area of personal possessions, linked by rivers and the Atlantic sea routes, doesn't come across. There isn't any reference to Fontevraud Abbey, the family abbey and mausoleum, etc. I'd definitely recommend reading Gillingham's "Angevin Empire" as a starting point for all of this.

Thanks, will do Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Added bit on FontevraudNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Added paragraph on terminology to part cover this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Another serious gap is the role of Richard in popular culture... out of all of the three kings considered here, he's surely had the most substantial impact, given the Robin Hood genre?

• Separated out the Robin Hood bits though Richard is largely a character in absentia and originally the king was called Edward. There appears to be surprisingly little significant literature based on him.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• While they weren't great palace builders, all three did a lot of work on castles... Goodall, John (2011). The English Castle has a chapter, I think, called "Angevin castles", covering their architecture etc.

• Seems like they didn't have a great architectual impact - I have added para to mention this.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sold on the title of the article - would "Angevin kings of England" or something like that be more accurate, as it doesn't really cover the Angevin rulers of Anjou? Also, if it genuinely is about the Angevins, as opposed to the Angevin kings, it needs a bit more on Geoffrey, Young Henry etc., who don't get much of a look in at the moment.

• Will add section on inheritance that should cover this Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Hchc2009: I have taken your advice and renamed as Angevin kings of England. Thanks. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• "This article is about the English royal house of the 12th century" - 12th-13th century?

DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Worth checking the material in the lead is all in the main body of the article; some of it doesn't seem to be.
• "The Angevins were a family of Frankish origin..." A little bit confusing, as it sounds as though Henry, Richard et al were a family of Frankish origin, which isn't really the case.

DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• "The Angevins struggled successfully for regional power with neighbouring provinces such as Normandy and Brittany," - they didn't really struggle with the provinces, but rather the Duke and Count respectively.

Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Finally, Fulk married his son and heir (Geoffrey) to Henry's daughter—and only surviving legitimate child—Matilda, beginning the Plantagenet dynasty." - or rather, surely more pertinent in this context, the Angevins? NB: this end bit is missing a reference.

• RewrittenNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• "Matilda's father (Henry I of England) named her as heir to his large holdings in what are now France and England" - they were called France and England in the 12th century as well.

• FixedNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• "Although Geoffrey had little interest in England, he supported Matilda by entering Normandy to claim her inheritance" - Geoffrey was, however, very interested in Normandy - he wasn't supporting Matilda in Normandy, he was taking what he regarded as his own property.

• RewrittenNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• "Matilda landed in England to challenge Stephen, and was declared "Lady of the English"; this resulted in the civil war known as the Anarchy. " - the sequencing is wrong here - the civil war had begun well before she was declared Lady of the English.

• RewrittenNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• "Matilda was never crowned, since the English conflict was inconclusive, " - not really... She wasn't crowned as she was forced out of London by the crowds, before she could be crowned at Westminster in 1141.

• Rewritten Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• "Three of Henry's men murdered Becket in Canterbury Cathedral (probably by misadventure)" - you can't really murder someone by misadventure (murder typically has to be deliberate). Barlow's authoritative book on Becket would be a much more reliable source than Schama here, by the way.

• RewrittenNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• "he was forced to walk barefoot " - not exactly forced... Probably also worth noting how Henry then used the cult of Becket for his own purposes.

• RewrittenNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• "The knights assumed the role of colonisers, accruing autonomous power (which concerned Henry)." - the bracketing here doesn't help the flow, and could probably be removed.

• Rewritten Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• "When Henry II tried to give his landless youngest son John a wedding gift of three castles," - on its own this doesn't make much sense; the key point was that they actually belonged to Young Henry, not Henry II...

• RewrittenNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• "Louis VII encouraged the elder sons to destabilise his mightiest subject" - the article doesn't really explain previously that Henry was Louis's subject, which makes this odd for the casual reader.

• RewrittenNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• "Henry was reluctant to have a sole heir" - I'm not sure this fits with the specialist literature on Henry II, and Jones isn't a great source for an exceptional statement (I'd use Warren in the first instance for Henry II).

• RewrittenNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• " When he died shortly afterwards, his last words to Richard were said to be: "God grant that I may not die until I have my revenge on you" - as written, this sounds like it was probably true; it's not taken that seriously by Henry's current biographers though, from what I recall. Again, Jones isn't a great source for this period.

• I'll take your word on that and remove Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Some duplicate references present (e.g. refs 83, 84 and 85)
• (NB: I've paused at "Decline") Hchc2009 (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, interesting article. Thanks for your work on this. I only had a quick look, but I have a couple of suggestions (mainly focusing on references/formating): AustralianRupert (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• in the lead, "Many historians consider the Angevins..." --> this construction may be contrary to the guidance at WP:WEASEL. Is there a different way to say this?
  • Done - is this better? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Getting there, most certainly, but I think that the second sentence now needs a little tweak. Currently it says "These historians..." but I don't think it has been defined who "These historians are" due to the earlier change. This is potentially going to be a difficult issue to deal with. This isn't a subject I know anything about, so I can't speak with any authority I'm afraid (and I hope I'm not giving you bad advice here), but my suggestion is that if there is a way to define which historians think this then I'd use that. For example is it possible to mention in the lead which historian first wrote that they were a distinct royal house? If this is known, then perhaps the first paragraph could go something like this: "The Angevins /ændʒvɪns/("from Anjou") were a family of Frankish origin descended from Ingelger, a ninth-century noble. According to the chronicler Joe Bloggs the Angevins were a distinct royal house and the word has been used collectively for the three English monarchs—Henry II, Richard I and John—but within historical accounts there is disagreement over whether the Angevins were separate from the Plantagents. Historians who have agreed with Bloggs record John's son (Henry III) as the first Plantagenet king of England, while historians who do not distinguish between the Angevins and the Plantagenets consider Henry II the first English king..." AustralianRupert (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Alternatively, you could safely avoid the point about differences in the first paragraph - it's not the most important aspect of the Angevins. You could go for "The Angevins /ændʒvɪns/("from Anjou") were a royal house of England in the 12th and 13th centuries, and comprised King Henry II, Richard I and John. The Angevin family line was descended from Ingelger, a ninth-century noble, and took its name from the County of Anjou, which Henry inherited from his father in..." - and then note that some people prefer the term Plantagenet, and that some people use the term Angevin to talk about the entire Anjou dynasty, in para 2 or 3. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you both - I have tried to go with Hchc2009's suggestion (sorry Rupert) as his knowledge of the period seems exemplary as ever. What do you both think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• No worries. I made a slight tweak. I think you need to be careful with using the term "some people" though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• listed as a short citation, but not in the Bibliography: Dyer, Coss, Duffy, Martinson, and Palmer
  • Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• additionally, the above should use the same format as the other short citations (e.g. use of the "harvnb" template);
  • Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• "Anouilh, p. xxiv." --> is this from the same work as "Anouilh 2005, p. xxiv"? If so, it should be presented the same
  • DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• check the alphabetical order of the works in the Bibliography, for instance Elliott shouldn't come before Contramine; Flori shouldn't come before Danziger; Gillingham shouldn't come before Favier etc. (there may be other instances as well);
  • DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• in the Bibliography, are there page numbers for the Barratt chapter within the Harper-Bill and Vincent book?
  • Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• same as above for Bevington, Brand, Curren-Aquino, Maley etc.
  • DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• in the Bibliography, some works have places of publication and others don't. For instance compare Brand (2007) with Carlton (2003).
  • Places removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Rupert, positive and supported as ever. Regards Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
    • No worries at all. Happy to help where I can. Sorry I can't do more, but my knowledge gap is huge with this one. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• G'day again, I've had another look. I believe you've addressed my comments, so I'd be happy to support promotion once the issues raised by the others are resolved. In the meantime, I've marked a couple of places where I think citations are needed. Could you please add these in? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Rupert, I have brought the two bits that need citation together and used the Oxford English Dictionary as well as linking to two other dysnasties that are sometimes called Angevin. Does this do the trick @AustralianRupert:? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• G'day, I'd suggest making the OED ref into an inline citation, but otherwise these fixes look good. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• sorry, I just had another quick look and found somethingelse that needs clarification: Something appears to be missing in this sentence: "Henry became a pariah in Christian Europe where the opinion was that he was complicit in the and he walked barefoot into the cathedral where he was scourged by monks as a penance" (complicit in the and...) Could you please adjust as necessary? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• No problems Rupert, I was embarrassed I missed this one, I think it now reads much better. On the OED citation I used the oed template as I thought that was correct, happy to change but could please advise on the best way to make this both inline and harvard. @AustralianRupert: Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• G'day, I had a go at putting it into an inline citation. The style probably isn't quite right, but is probably good enough for A-class. At FAC it would probably be best to convert it to the {{cite web}} template. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyediting comments per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk)

• Regarding WEASEL above, note from Weasel word#Origin that the original reference was to the "egg-eating habits of weasels", rather than weasely behavior :)
• "consider that": Avoid this ambiguous phrase. It's meaningless in American English, and in British English, it seems to be used in place of "considered ... to be", "decided", and "supposed", at a minimum.

• I've removed all the considers.....seemed easierNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'll stop there for the moment, and come back after this one is a little farther along. - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Dank: thanks, is it worth another look to see if I am on the right lines?Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

• I apologise for coming in at such a late stage, but I do not think Angevins as the title of an article about the Angevin kings make sense. 'Angevin' is commonly used to mean inhabitants of Anjou, and also to mean the house of Anjou including Henry's father and his other sons (as Hchc pointed out). There is already an article about the Angevin Empire, which seems to me a much better title. I would suggest you merge your material into that article and then nominate it for A-Class. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• No reason to apologise @Dudley Miles:, whatever happens this one is still a bit short. Although, I don't agree with your point I understand what you mean. Angevin is also a term used for the coinage of Anjou and at least two other dynasties and this is mentioned in the article. The "Angevin Empire" article doesn't work for me because although it is largely based on Gillingham's book of the same name it ignores his reporting of a strong current opinion that the empire didn't exist in any truely constituitional or historical way. However, Angevin does exist as an important periodisation in the history of the monarchy with both Gillingham and the official website of the monarchy. Gillingham notes that the period was fundamentally different from the Normans before and the Platntagenets after. Hchc also notes the perculiar nature of the period when England was ruled by monarchs largely from abroad. Would welcome a view if this changes your original comment Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• I take your point about Angiven Empire but I still think Angevins is far too general for the title of an article about the Angevin kings of England. How about Angevin Dynasty? This is currently a disambig. It could be moved to Angevin Dynasty (disambiguation), and this article moved to Angevin Dynasty with a hatnote pointing to the disambig. What does @Hchc2009: think? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• That seems perfectly logical to me, interesting to see what hchc thinks but there looks an like an answer here. Cheers. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Apologies for the delay - have been travelling about. For me, Angevin Dynasty would still feel wider (more like the Angevins); how about Angevin royal dynasty? Makes it more specific, and it would be clear then not to expect the pre-royal dynasty in there. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Seems sensible, what do you think @Dudley Miles: Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Hchc2009 and Dudley Miles: Take both your points but after thinking about it I believe hchc2009 original suggestion of the Angevin kings of England fits better solely on the basis that it then differentiates them from the Angevin Kings of Naples and Sicily, Hungary etc. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where this ACR is now - I think I have addressed Hchc2009's points as far as he got and there is the question of renaming the article? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

G'day, I'm not offering an opinion on the article per se, more an uninvolved coordinator's take on where the review is, especially given the length of time it's been active. If all that's needed to drop the extant opposes is changing the article name, then once that's agreed the review may be worth continuing. OTOH if there's still actionable issues, or changing to the most appropriate name may still require significant changes to the article, I think we'd best close as no consensus and work on it outside the ACR process, before returning for another try. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I have come to this article late because Nofolkbigfish did not seem to be replying to hchc's comments, and I see that some comments in July did not get replies until October. Looking at it now, I am not clear about its focus. I would prefer a shorter article, focused on what made the Angevin period distinct, with a title (yet another suggestion) such as Angevin English Dynasty, and with less details about the individual kings. I am not sure of the point of an article which is mainly a precis of the articles about the separate kings. However hchc - who of course knows vastly more about the period than me - seems to be going in a different direction, suggesting more about popular culture such as Robin Hood. The article also looks as if needs considerable copy editing. It gives two different dates, 1151 and 1154, for the death of Henry's brother Geoffrey, while Geoffrey's own article says 1158. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Count Geoffrey died in 1151, you are right that Henry's brother Geoffrey died in 1158—I've corrected the date and tried to clarify the differentiation between the two men. FWIW Angevin English Dynasty is an oxymoron and cuts across one of the key differentiaters of this article in the point is that they came from and lived in a French tradition—they were not English.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It took longer than expected to address @Hchc2009: comments due to either or both of us being away but I believe this has now been done but knowing hchc2009 I suspect he may well come back with more when he gets the chance to give these another look. It does look like there is consensus that the article needs a more appropriate name with Angevin kings of England suggested by hchc2009 being the one makes sense to me —but I don't think that what it is is particularly important as long as it distinguishes between the half a dozen or so other dynasties called Angevin. As an article it was when I picked it up and remains of a piece with other dynasty articles and shares the pros and cons that they all seem to have.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough on the title. I withdraw my oppose and will try to look at the article in more detail. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• "For Richard, England's importance was as a source of revenue to support his military adventures including the Third Crusade." Was it not equally important as the source of his title of king, and thus the equal of the king of France?

• Rechecked sources and this now seems an outdated view so removedNorfolkbigfish (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• "The adjective Angevin is especially used in English history to refer to the Plantagenet kings —beginning with Henry II" This is confusing. The premise of the article, as stated in the paragraph above, is that the Angevins were a separate dynasty before the Plantegenets.

• Removed confusing adjective Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• "The line of the Count of Anjou that the Angevins form part of descend from Geoffrey II, Count of Gâtinais and Ermengarde of Anjou (daughter of Fulk III of Anjou) who inherited the title in 1060 via cognatic kinship when an older line dating from 870 and descending from a noble called Ingelger ended." This is a bit clumsy. It could do with being split into separate sentences and being set out more simply.

• DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• "In the 11th-century growing prosperity and stability led to developments in inheritance custom that allowed daughters to succeed in the absence of sons." This is a non-sequitur.

• RewordedNorfolkbigfish (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• "However, it is unknown whether King Henry intended to make Geoffrey his heir but it is known that the threat presented by William Clito made his negotiating position very weak." Weak in what way? Did Henry agree to the marriage to secure Fulk's agreement to the annulment of Clito's marriage with Fulk's daughter?

• Weak in respect of a competing claim to Normandy - added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• I am doubtful about how much of this and the following paragraph are relevant. It is largely speculation about possible consequences of events which did not occur, and also confusing as the two Geoffreys are not distinguished.

• Important in regards to the fact it illustrates the uncertainty of the outcomes of the period and the number of counterfactuals that could have occurred that the actors would have been aware of. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• "The custom of partible inheritance would lead to political fragmentation." Was it a custom of Anjou or Norman? Presumably not English.

• French. Added. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• "For example in 1173 and 1183 Henry tried to force Richard owed allegiance to his older brother" This is ungrammatical and unclear.

• Reworded. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• "This was complicated by the Angevins being subjects of the kings of France who felt these rights more legally belonged to them." What rights?

• Feudal rights of homage, allegiance and wardship. Added. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• "More by accident than design this meant that the two partition plans that came to pass was that John would have Ireland, Arthur Brittany and the rest would fall to Richard." This is ungrammatical and unclear.

• Reworded. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Further comments

• "She captured but was forced to release Stephen—in a hostage exchange for her half-brother Robert, 1st Earl of Gloucester—who was re-crowned." I had to read this several times to work out that you mean Stephen was re-crowned, even though you have not said that he was crowned. I would leave it out and say above that he had himself crowned (not proclaimed) king.
• "After skilful negotiation with King Stephen and the war-weary English barons," The article on Stephen attributes to the two sides fighting each other to a standstill rather than any skilfull negotiations. It is cited to Mike Ashley, who does not appear to be a WP:RS source for this subject.
• "When Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury died, Henry II appointed his friend Thomas Becket" You jump to this from the Treaty of Wallingford. I would give the date of Henry's succession and appointment of Becket.
• "to reassert privileges held by his father-in-law." I do not understand this.
• "Becket opposed Henry's Constitutions of Clarendon" This needs explaining.
• "but to defuse the controversy surrounding Becket's murder Henry re-established all fiefs in Ireland." I do not understand this.
• "Henry II tried to give his landless youngest son John a wedding gift" Date?
• You do not mention Henry's death.
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note -- as per this, closing as no consensus. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

---

No consensus to promote at this time - Sturmvogel 66 (talk) MilHistBot (talk) 06:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Bombardment of Cherbourg

Nominator(s): v/r - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

The article was nominated for FA out of sequence, when it failed the suggestion was made to request an A-Class review. Collaborative editors have subsequently made copy edits. The the article is evolving from a stub describing naval activity only, expanded to encompass the combined operations that it was -- infantry, navy, air -- in support of division-level infantry capture of Cherbourg. It makes the distinction between heavy gunnery effectiveness on fixed targets to disable them until capture, versus contributions by destroyer fire support directed by army spotters. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• The lead doesn't summarize the article. There's a lot of leeway ... see various A-Class and Featured articles ... but not this much leeway.
• "Following the initial beachhead lodgment in Europe on D-Day, as the Allied push east stalled around at Caen, the 1st U.S. Army, VII U.S. Army Corps, was to turn west": There are several things that make the time sequence harder to follow than we like to see at A-class. Don't say "Following ... D-Day" if you're really talking about something that happened weeks later, don't say "as" if you mean "after", and don't say the corps "was to turn west", as if you're talking about the planning stages, if you're telling us about what happened when they actually did turn west. (None of those things is fatal to the reader's understanding by itself, but together, they frustrate the readers' attempts to get a sense of the time frame.)
• "Cherbourg, the major port facility": the major port facility in Cherbourg
• "To support their advance": pronouns should usually refer to nouns in the same sentence, but never in the previous paragraph.
• "COMBINED TASK FORCE 129 ...": People will sometimes put lists, such as orders of battle, in one of the last sections, but inserting a list in the middle of an encyclopedia article makes it look ... like it's not an encyclopedia article. (This is discussed at WP:EMBED.) Also, avoid all capitals in prose per WP:ALLCAPS. - Dank (push to talk) 19:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, all items I can act on. It's especially important to avoid stylistic conventions in the sources which are not applicable on WP.

Another editor collaboratively uncapitalized Army and Navy throughout the article as found in both army and navy sources, because they are common nouns at Wikipedia...I take it that would also be the WP:MILITARY punctuation convention for the marine corps and air force as well.

Likewise, although I had technically used "comprised" correctly as sourced at Talk, it seems it is reverted without discussion so often that trying to maintain it would simply make the article unstable in the face of well intentioned editors without a grasp of the term's military usage in sources and as explained by modern linguists. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

My sympathies. I see "comprise" isn't in the article now, which is probably a good solution. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

On further review, it seems to me that the Bombardment of Cherbourg#Destroyers section should be split off into another stub or list article. I'm not sure mechanically how to do that in conformance with WP:MILITARY convention. It is clearly related, but only tangentially to the main subject of the article [naval] Bombardment of Cherbourg, however personally interested I may be in the WWII destroyers my father served in, Atlantic and Pacific. It would be a shame to lose the Table of Organization by destroyer division which accounts for their losses, but as an editor/writer, I really am interested in perfecting Bombardment of Cherbourg. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Consistency needed: Ninth Air Force, IX Army Air Force
• Consistency needed: 18 June, June 22
• German ranks probably need translation.
• In general, the narrative jumps around a bit. I copyedited per my copyediting disclaimer, down to Battle groups 1 and 2. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Consistency now throughout for 'IX Army Air Force' and date 'June 22'. I am an English editor using English sources, so I used spelling of German ranks used in sources as they are found in English editions, without trying to translate them into their disparate US or British equivalents. Is there a standard reference in use, or consensus translation tables in a Wikipedia list article?

Other sources don't always follow Wikipedia policies, such as WP:UE (Also see WP:Use English. These pages are specifically talking about using terms in page titles, but have applicability to page content as well.) Wikipedia articles do a good job of translating ranks. It's fine to list the German as well, if many relevant sources list the German, which is often true for WWII history. - Dank (push to talk) 11:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I've expanded the introduction with two paragraphs at your editorial direction. Is there an example of an A-Class WWII battle that I can refer to, so I can have a better over-all picture of the standard in practice? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

At for instance User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Military history, click on "A" or the number beside it. - Dank (push to talk) 11:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I found Bombardment of Papeete using English titles for the German commander. Morison titles von Schlieben both as "Generalleutenant" and "General", so I’ve chosen Morison’s "General" in English, so as to follow the scholar, and not my own untutored original research. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

All copyedit suggestions are met to the best of my ability. The drive on Cherbourg was intended immediately at invasion just as the drive on Caen, but the passage has now been rewritten so as to narrow the article's scope as you suggested to avoid confusing the reader. The introduction is expanded to align with A-class articles. What's the next step? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments/suggestions: G'day, interesting topic/article. Thanks for your work on it. I made a couple of tweaks to the article, so please check you are happy with my changes (if not, please feel free to revert). Additionally, I have the following suggestions:

• I think the prose probably still needs a little work. For example watch out for clarity of expression: "General Pete Quesada of the Ninth Air Force flew Liberators..." This makes it sound like Quesada flew them personally, when he probably just commanded them. Is there a way that this could be made a little clearer?
• measurements including distances should be converted where possible to help readers not familiar with some measurements (for example "15,000 yards"). I performed an example edit on the article to illustrate how to do this.
• in the Battle groups 1 and 2 section, something like this might make the paragraph a little smoother: "The task force was divided into two divisions: Group 1 under Deyo and Group 2 under Admiral C.F. Bryant. Deyo's Group 1 consisted of Tuscaloosa, Quincy, Nevada, HMS Glasgow and five destroyers: Ellyson (flag), Hambleton, Rodman, Emmons, Murphy, and Gherardi, and it was assigned to bombard Cherbourg, the inner harbor forts and the area west towards the Atlantic. Bryant's smaller Group 2 was to take "Target 2", the Hamburg Battery. Located near Fermanville, inland from Cape Levi, six miles east of Cherbourg, Group 2 was made up of the aging Texas, Arkansas, and the destroyers Barton (flag), O'Brien, Laffey, Hobson (pennant), and Plunket. Nevada in Group 1 was to use its major battery to silence "the most powerful German strongpoint on the Cotentin Peninsula".[3] Then Group 2 would complete the destruction, and pass westward to join Deyo's group."
• where you use quotations in the body of the article, in most cases they should be attributed in text. For example, "According to Smith, "in all cases, it was the responsiblity of the ship to determine..."
• watch out for duplication. For instance, this seems to duplicate what is said earlier in the paragraph: "This was possible because each bombarding ship was provided with an army officer who tracked positions of Allied forces ashore"
• a couple of paragraphs seem to be uncited. For instance, the first and second last in the Combined Task Force section, and the paragraph starting "In the World War II U.S. Navy destroyer..." and then the discussion of the ships in that section onwards
• could this be clarified: "All planned long-range shots on seaward batteries were cancelled" (why was this done?)
• "Destroyer Emmons..." (and other similar constructions) seem a bit awkward. Perhaps "The destroyer Emmons..." (etc.) might be smoother;
• in the References section, I'd advise against using constructions like "op cit". While they work in paper-based work, on Wikipedia where references can be deleted rather quickly, they are not really applicable. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the critique. I need to translate out of the source conventions found in naval sources, "Destroyer Emmons"... I wrote drafts from sources, so I may have lost citation coverage with later paragraphing. This should be easily remediable.

Cancellation of long range shots on seaward batteries was due to additional care to avoid friendly fire casualties. The army did not have confidence in naval target acquisition at that time. At the end of the engagement, the cruisers on leaving the immediate area continued an extended barrage as they set out to sea since the army command was more confident in naval gunnery accuracy. I remember clearly from the sources there were investigations after friendly fire incidents in the initial phases of Normandy Invasion. My impression is generally, during infantry support missions, ships navigated closer in the mine fields, bombers flew lower to better acquire targets, artillery units detached forward spotters, infantry detached liaisons to ships, army air spotters adjusted naval gun fires -- Supporting arms took more losses for the cost benefit to avoid friendly fire losses.

This was important to me personally to expand out of the stub so I could read it to my father, who was on the destroyer which ran reconnaissance under the Cherbourg guns provoking fire so an army air pilot could map the German battery positions. The ship not only constantly changed course radically, it also varied speed, but the Germans were still able to bracket the ship with fires. He said that the German slave labor sabotaged their ammunition, and that is why the ships which were holed during the Bombardment of Cherbourg were not sunk. But other than a British Admiral's tangential assessment that close in operations were not a good idea, I have not found a source to confirm my father's recollection.

He was really active in publication and video documentary about Normandy before he died. He had some stories about destroyer picket duty off Okinawa, but he really did not have a lot to say about the Pacific island mop up operations in the last phase. Although grateful for mutton from Australia for the duration, he did not eat "lamb" for decades after the war.

I very much would like to write in such a way that the complexity of the inter-service operation is conveyed. In a small scale combat example from the Vietnam era, I personally have heard an army helicopter pilot in distress receive a "green deck" to land on a ship and then reply "all the decks are grey", with tragic results. I wonder whether an hour's video orientation course in ship operations might have helped during some All Officer's squadron meeting.

Ah yes, op. cit. a couple years ago that convention was still an acceptable alternative in the MOS. This is an early effort on my part, but I still do not have my Wikipedia sea legs on referencing. I know that there is a convention which renders a,b,c Smith, John. "The Book Title" ISBN paging convention...but I am not fluent yet I am afraid. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

G'day, I generally use Template:Sfn to help format refs in articles I write, but this is not a requirement. There are many ways to format references in a manner that is acceptable at A-class. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Further comment/suggestion: I had another look at it this morning and I think that it might make sense to restructure the article a little. This might help with the narrative flow a little. I'd suggest the following structure: Background (level 2 header), "Assigned forces" (level 2 header) with various level 3 headers such as "Battle Groups 1 and 2", "Air support" and (maybe) "Fire control measures", then another level 2 header called "Bombardment", with two level 3 headers "Initial bombardment" (reusing the content in the current "Fire support areas" section) and "Exenstion to the bombardment". Finally, you could finish the article with a level 2 header called "Aftermath" (or Outcomes if you prefer). Not sure about where "Destroyers" would fit in as currently it doesn't seem to fit within the narrative in its current format (it could potentially be included in Assigned forces or Bombardment depending on what is included in it). Anyway, I'll leave it up to you to decide. Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I like the proposed restructure as it highlights the joint nature of the enterprise and the coordination achieved.

The destroyer section is almost like a table of equipment rather than the task force table of organization. Should it have it's own stub article, WWII Atlantic destroyers?

The introduction has been expanded to better hit on the main points covered in the article, whereas before it was too abbreviated per the previous critique. Does it suffice?

Thanks again, lots to work on. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Follow up comments: G'day, this evening I had a go at copy editing the article a bit more. In the process I moved some of the text around as per the above suggestion. Please review my changes and adjust if you they are not to your liking. I also have a few more suggestions:
  • Regarding the lead, I think it has a decent level of coverage now, but it might pay to have someone else also look at it;
  • Regarding the Destroyers section, I think it would be a good idea to move the majority of the information out of the article as it seems to probably place undue focus on the topic;
  • the See also section should probably be reduced. Where you have already mentioned a ship in the body of the article, the link should be included at first mention, and then there is no requirement to add it to the See also section;
  • I've added a "citation needed" tag where I think a reference is required. If you can, please add a citation where I've marked;
  • if possible, I would like to see more coverage of the air cover and the anti-submarine/minesweeping operations;
  • is there any information about casualties amongst the ships' crews that could be added?
  • I suggest splitting the footnotes and citations into separate sections in the references. For instance, the way in which it is done on USS Monitor is a possible solution (although it isn't the only one).
  • be careful with forcing the size of the images, it might be better just to use the "thumb" parameter, rather than forcing the sizes (e.g. "360 px"), as this can create some issues on different sized computer screens;
  • Anyway, that is probably all I have. I will come back later to see how you are getting on, but unfortunately after next Saturday I will be offline for about three weeks, so I might not respond promptly. Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• von Schlieben was a Generalleutnant per this (among many other sources) which was equivalent to a US Army Major general per Stein (1984) The Waffen SS: Hitler's Elite Guard at War, 1939–45 p. 295. I know he wasn't Waffen-SS, but the relevant page of Stein provides Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS equivalents in the US Army. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Second checklist update

Generalleutnant is added, Destroyer section deleted, and Morison p. 198 citation provided as requested. See also is reworked, new section Ships assigned.

Another editor provided the specific a/c types without references, should they be deleted, or is it common knowledge which aircraft were assigned to each squadron? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Expanded narrative on minesweepers, Bibliography section, separated notes from references.

General histories in Google searches for IX Army Air Force or IX TAC gloss over air spotters for sea bombardment coordination, although it was mentioned in dispatches from the German commander. The focus is generally on providing support to the infantry, and the coordination was not yet perfected. Putting the same radios in aircraft and ships was later adapted to putting the same radios in aircraft and tanks for better spotter and direct air support.

Still searching for naval casualties during the bombardment. Crews were at battle stations in condition Z during combat operations, so although several ships were holed, casualties were reported as light. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Image review

Key:

Normal text:	Fine
Italic text:	Minor issues.
Bold text:	Major issues

• File:Morton Lyndholm Deyo 1.jpg is a bit underdocumented. No date, vague source.
• File:Pete Quesada.jpg - Underdocumented; source link broken.
• File:Portcherbourg.jpg "This picture is from the site Archives Normandie 1939-45 where it is available under reference identifier undefined" - That's not good. No author information (If the Archives Normandie says "unknown", then say "unknown")
• File:Cherbourgair.jpg Good; could use an {{Information}} template.
• File:HMS Onslow.jpg Fine.
• File:HMSBangor.jpg No real source. I really hate the automated moving-to-Commons tools we had a while ago. I think - or, at least, hope they've gotten better.
• File:Pheasant (MSF 61).jpg Fine.
• File:Canoncherbourg.jpg Good; could use an {{Information}} template.
• File:USS Nevada (BB-36) fire on positions ashore.jpg Fine.
• File:USS Tuscaloosa (CA-37) in October 1942.jpg Fine.
• File:USS HAMBLETON (DD-455 DMS-20).jpg Fine.
• File:The capture of Cherbourg - Detail.jpg Good; could use an {{Information}} template; almost as good as, though.
• File:Damagedcherbourg.jpg Good; could use an {{Information}} template; almost as good as, though.

Some problems, I think only the Morton Deyo image is particularly worrisome, though. It's by far the worst documented... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Bombardment of Cherbourg pics. Thanks for the assist. A couple of observations on the three problematical photos for A-class status.

In the first portrait photo for John Plagis in a Featured Article, there is an author, and the date is “created: between 1939 and 1945”. Is that the convention which should be uniformly adopted for WWII photos which are otherwise undated? In the second portrait, the photographer is identified only as “Royal Air Force official photographer”, which is to say unknown. The photo is “Created: between 1943 and 1944”, which seems reasonable even if the photo is not dated, since both men were alive and stationed at the same place during that time frame.

For Deyo, the image is on wikimedia commons, The source is the United States Navy, “This file is a word of a sailor of employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made as a part of that person’s official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.” This is not a more vague source than is required for Featured Articles, generally given the example this month, naming the author as "official Navy photographer” should suffice. The date span is 1943-1945, given his promotion to admiral with a sea command. Those amendments are in place.

For Quesada, the image is on wikipedia, a candidate for wikimedia commons. “This image is a work of a U.S. Army employee, taken or made as part of that person’s official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.” The original image was captured from the Air Force Association webpage. I’ve sent an email to ask for updated URL for the photo made in the Bombardment of Cherbourg time frame. Another photo as a formal portrait is available at Boeing Company website, but it would not fit in with the other two period photos, and it is not open sourced.

The template for sourced documents from Archievesnormandie uses the term “undefined”. I am not acquainted with the procedure for modifying templates, but the Summary now shows the Author as “unknown” per Talk suggestion. I have to say I am somewhat surprised, Is perfecting photo files beyond Featured Article photo elements a part of an article gaining A-class status? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I did this review identically to how I'd do an FAC review. The problem is that, without a source, and without any additional information, it's hard to check they're Army photographs, for example, and, for that matter, images uploaded in 2007 were encouraged to be fairly low resolution. We've since realised that's a mistake. With a source, we might do better. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

For Portcherbourg, the source site is now dead, which I suppose can excuse the lack of identifier... however, it's not a very good photo. What do you think of http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NBQFEe9lExQ/TlGpnRu0TII/AAAAAAAAAO4/GZGr4zoV6rU/s1600/eleanor%252C+cherbourg.jpg from http://www.thecascadiacourier.com/2011/08/girl-and-fish.html and dated 1944 and US Army photo? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

We can rely on the previous editor's tags that the photos were official work of navy and army air photographers. I think that it would be interesting to reconstruct the sourcing, does that mean putting the review of the Bombardment of Cherbourg article on hold?

Okay. The linked photo is certainly of the place and of the time. But it lacks the panoramic view showing the topography from land looking seaward to pair with the panoramic aerial photo from sea looking landward on either side of the map as a visual orientation to the place. It is in one sense, a duplicate of the effectiveness of the naval bombardment showing the disruption of a casemate battery further down in the article, were it subject of naval gunnery.

But the civilian building was not a designated target of the naval bombardment, I cannot discern it was indeed naval gunnery which did the damage; the walls are still standing, that would argue that it was not. That unknown to me seems more problematical for inclusion in the article than the specific authorship of a photo. The photo looks like a well focused photo of any bombed-out civilian building in France, 1944-1945, from aerial bombing or artillery shelling. I do not understand how it helps the reader to visualize the terrain pictured in the centered map of Cherbourg port, which is what the existing photo was chosen to do. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: I found the larger picture that Deyo’s cropped image was taken from, at WWII Archives.net, it is of Gen. Eisenhower, Adm. Kirk and Adm. Deyo aboard the USS Tuscaloosa. The citation is from National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, Maryland (80-G-231642). I rummaged around in the search feature at the National Archives, but could not readily find the item. Any assistance would be appreciated.

Further Google search yields the Naval Historical Center on the web at .history.navy.mil/photos/images/, describing the photo Photo #: 80-G-231642. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, U.S. Army (left), with Rear Admiral Alan G. Kirk, USN (center) and Rear Admiral Morton L. Deyo, USN — On board USS Tuscaloosa (CA-37) on 19 May 1944, during preparations for the Normandy invasion. — Official U.S. Navy Photograph, now in the collections of the National Archives. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to note: I think these image issues should be sorted by FAC; we can probably let this slide at A-class a bit. I'll be back a bit later on to help do the documentation. @Dominic: is the Wikipedian at Residence in NARA, and can probably say about the Deyo pic more, if need be, but I believe the 80-G-231642 is a reference number, so that's probably enough documentation. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

That is a NARA-specific identifier. 231642 is the number on the individual photo, and 80-G signifies which series it belongs to: "General Photographic File of the Department of Navy, 1943 - 1958". The original physical print should be able to be retrieved with that identifier, but it appears it has not been individually described in the catalog yet. The scans circulating on the Internet were likely produced by public researchers who came across the photo in the archives themselves. We could potentially rescan an original if requested, but I can't make any promises. Dominic·t 20:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Dominic! That clarifies things a lot. Honestly, if it's only being used to identify Deyo and maybe Kirk, and the full image isn't being used on Wikipedia yet, I'm not sure it's worth putting you to the effort. If you can easily grab a better image of Deyo, then that might be good, but otherwise, don't worry! =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Quesada. The same photo for Gen. Elwood Richard “Pete” Quesada which is used at Bombardment of Cherbourg is used to illustrate “Historic Fourth of July Flight” Part Two, 461st Air Service Squadron, “Gen. Eisenhower’s famous flight with the Pioneer Mustang Fighter Group”. A comparable period photo is in the sdasmarchieves, the San Diego Air and Space Museum Archive on flickr. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

---

No consensus to promote at this time. Anotherclown (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Bryan D. Brown

Nominator(s): —  dainomite  

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it recently passed the GA process (in late December 2013) and I believe it meets the A-class criteria. Prior to going through the GA process it was copyedited by the GOCE and had a Peer Review conducted as well. Thank you for your time, —  dainomite   05:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comments
  • A couple of missing citations Vietnam and 160th SOAR sections
    • I believe I filled these in, If I'm still missing any would you kindly point them out?
      • It should be fine now, though someone might complain that the sentence about his interest in aviation after Vietnam doesn't have a citation, though I'd argue that it's just a transition sentence to the next paragraph, where the claim is substantiated, so it shouldn't need a citation.
  • Those sections are a bit thin also - any idea where in Vietnam he served, for instance?
    • The only thing I can find thus far (which I actually just dug up) was he was a part of the 129th Assault Helicopter Company while a UH-1 pilot but his previous tour while a Green Beret just says he was a part of a 7th SFG "A Team". I wish I could find something that went into greater detail about his actions while on both combat tours.
      • I'd wager the A Teams' missions are not widely discussed (and may still be classified for all we know), so there probably isn't much we can do there. Is there anything you could add on where the 129th was based? Presumably it was attached to a specific division and thus we could add what Corps area it was assigned to. Parsecboy (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit confused about the connection between the ruck march and the reconnaissance flight in 1970 - generally, one does a ruck march in LPCs ;) It seems like a non-sequitur.
    • I may have worded it poorly. Here's the quote from the reference (which is from Gen Brown) "I was in Dahlonega, Ga., at the Mountain Ranger Camp, carrying a rucksack and a radio, when a lieutenant asked me to go with him on a “Huey” [UH-1 helicopter] to do a reconnaissance of a potential LZ [landing zone]. I rode in the Huey and immediately was struck that this looked like something I would like to do, so I signed up for OCS and flight school." It makes sense to me having read the reference so I'm confused by whats confusing about it. :/
      • It's clearer now - the missing link was that he took part in a helicopter reconnaissance during the ruck march - otherwise the two statements appeared to be unrelated.
  • What unit was he assigned to as a field artillery officer?
    • Thank you, expanded this and added a reference.
  • UH-1 pilot in Vietnam - what unit?
    • Thank you, expanded this and added a reference.
  • Where was he assigned between earning his aviator badge in 1971 and the 158th in 1978? (I know, I'm starting to sound like a broken record ;) )
    • Ah! I hadn't even noticed this. I wish the Army would make biographies like the USAF where they have a chronological list of assignments with respective dates. Unfortunately all I have been able to find is assignments without corresponding dates. However, I'm also not sure how to include said assignments without adding more context. It would simply state things like "he was Commander, 5/101st Aviation Battalion, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault);" without any supporting documentation for when. However, in a few of his interviews he states that much of his early history remains classified, again not giving any specific dates though.
      • It is unfortunate that there aren't better references to draw on for biographies like this, even for seemingly major figures. It might have to suffice to say something like "After returning from Vietnam [in year X if you have one], Brown served in Unit A, Unit B, and as commander of Unit C" and so forth. Ideally you'd be able to track down rough dates (even years would be helpful) but if that information isn't there, it's just not there. That's the problem with writing a biography of someone who was heavily involved in special operations.
  • It's best to provide some context for things like Eagle Claw - the vast majority of readers won't know what it was, let alone why it failed (which is a central reason to why the 160th was created - which also isn't made clear - at this point, they're presented as two unrelated facts).
    • I believe I did this adequately; although it sounds a bit awkward to me for some reason, I can't really put a finder on it. I tried to include relevant parts while not trying to add a plethora of extra information. I didn't want to just wantonly add "In 1980 the Iran hostage crisis happened. and then operation eagle claw happened and failed. and as a result Brown was put in charge of this" because I felt as if the reader would, for a few lines be like, "why does is this there? why is that there? Ohh... finally after reading a paragraphy i see" So I tried to word it with what ended up being probably the longest sentence I've ever written but it ties him into it.
      • I'd wager you have a couple of sentences to lay the groundwork of a new topic before the reader will start to question why it's relevant. I took the liberty to rework the section a bit (and split it into its own section) - see if you like it, and if not, feel free to revert it.
  • Same for Credible Sport - a brief outline of the operation would be good, especially since Brown was the planner
    • Done
      • Is there any information about the plan? I'm guessing it's still classified, but was it supposed to follow the same basic outline of Eagle Claw?
  • Explain why using NVGs while flying is a notable thing (I know why, but most readers will not)
    • Hopefully I did an adequate job here.
  • Check for duplicate links - there are a couple in the lead and one each in the Education and Other accolades sections.
    • Hrmm, I believe I got most of them. If I missed any please point them out.
  • Any further information on this citation? What makes it reliable, for instance.
    • That reference was there prior to me editting the article and I've never touched it because the full bio costs almost 8 USD for access but it states "Bryan Doug Brown retired military officer, Born: 1948" I did add a link to the reference for the search results that show this however.

Parsecboy (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, another point I suppose would be helpful. This is my first time (and only, thus far) taking an article to GA so if I don't quite understand something or a specific way of doing things please forgive me. I hope to get better at this. :3 Thank you for the direction given so far. I really appreciate it. —  dainomite   06:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments: G'day and welcome to Milhist A-class review. Thanks for your efforts so far on this article. It looks quite good. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• I suggest adding specific mention of his date of birth in the Early life and military section; also if possible I suggest adding what school he went to;
• in the Early military career and Vietnam section, is it possible to add a sentence or two about what Brown did while deployed a Special Forces A Team? (Even if this was just a generic comment about the types of operations the SF A Teams undertook, it might fill the gap);
• this sentence appears to be missing something: "At the Army War College in 1992, a then-Lieutenant Colonel Brown co-wrote a military studies program with future United States Northern Command commander, Victor E. Renuart, Jr., a paper titled Combat Search and Rescue: A Search for Tomorrow". I think it needs the word "in" inserted before "a paper title..."
• are there any references for the list of decorations that could be added?
• "...it wasn't until 1990 when it would take on it's current name..." (it is best not to use contractions here, so I'd suggest changing "wasn't" to "was not"; additionally "it's" should be "its" in this sentence because it is possessive in this case, not a contraction of "it is")
• watch out for duplicate links (the general rule at A-class is link a term once in the lead and once in the body, although subsequent links may be used if the article is very long). I use a script to look for duplicate links. This script has identified the following as overlinked: UH-1, Operation Eagle Claw, Chad, Operation Desert Storm, and reconnaissance. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh shoot, I must've missed this somehow. I'll address said issues within a day or two. Sorry about that. Regards, —  dainomite   17:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose for now. It looks like nothing that AR brought up has been fixed, and it's been a while. Happy to have another look after progress has been made. - Dank (push to talk) 10:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC) @Dainomite: we'll be thinking about closing this soon, so if you want to progress the ACR, could you have a crack at addressing the comments soon? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

---

No consensus to promote at this time Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Fore River Shipyard

Nominator(s): Kevin Rutherford (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I would like eventually get the article to be a Featured Article, but would like some feedback before I nominate it to reach that stage. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Reluctantly oppose at this stage

I'm really glad to see an article on a shipyard here, as we need more of them. I think this article needs some more work on the copyediting though, before it reaches A-class, and it might be worth going through GA first. I've gone through the first bit, and I'd note:

• "What's more" - should be "What is more"
  • I never really heard of that usage before, but it may be more of a regional dialect thing, so I have fixed it now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• "The shipyard can trace its beginnings back to 1882," - "can trace", or just "traces"?
  • Fixed to the last one. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• "alongside Fore River in" - I'd normally expect "the Fore River"
  • Makes sense, so thanks for the suggestion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• "Thomas A. Watson " - watch the duplicate links
  • I've always operated with the assumption that there should be one link per section, but that is also going off of an idea from 2008, so I can remove it if you want. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• "and his business partner Frank O. Wellington " - repetition from previous paragraph
  • Corrected. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• "as the result of building their first ship, the Barnacle, which was fitted with local furnishings, including castings." - it wasn't clear to me what the local furnishings and castings had to do with this (i.e. why is it important?)
  • This may come from the aspect of "support a local business", although it was probably more of a necessity a century ago, but it ties into the quote a lot better. Do you want this removed? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• "The success of this operation was further compounded by the fact" - you usually "compound" a problem, not a success, so this read oddly
  • Corrected. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• "Furthermore, the diversity of the company was due to the fact that Watson desired to employ as many friends as possible." - I don't think you've explained that there was diversity yet, or what that diversity is (products? backgrounds? nationalities?)
  • Thanks for correcting that slight oversight. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• "The Panic of 1893 would bring a new era to the company, as the depression limited the company's possibilities." You don't need the conditional here: "The Panic of 1893 brought a new era..."
  • Fixed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• "United States lightship LV-72 was constructed alongside the destroyers," -the previous sentence said the other two ships were the last to be constructed at the location - was the lightship built there, or somewhere else?
  • There, but the way that it is ordered allows for some confusion, so let me know if you want me to rework this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• "The awarding of the USS Des Moines (CL-17) brought a new era to the company." - repetition of "a new era"
  • Fixed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• "Watson decided to build a new yard in Quincy with his own money." - repetition, you've already said the company moved in the previous paragraph
  • Corrected. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• "bringing with it some financial stability to the yard, as new expenses were quadruple those at the East Braintree location. " - not sure what this meant
  • I think that was in reference to revenues, and was used as another term for it, because that is the only thing that would make sense in the context of the article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• " to accommodate the lack of buildings at the new location" - not sure "accommodate" is the right verb here
  • Noted and corrected. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Use of the consumer price index. The consumer price index is designed to compare consumer goods (e.g. the price of a loaf of bread, or a pint of beer). It can't be used to compare the prices of big objects like ships, because they're not part of the index. Use in this way is typically Original Research - see Template:Inflation for more details on the wiki, or [2] off-wiki. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I actually ran into that information the other day when I was correcting the numbers to 2014. On the peer review page, Nikkimaria left a suggestion that I consider adding that, so I just went ahead and added it to all instances in order to cover all of the bases. In light of this, I will remove the ship information, but what do you suggest that I keep? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry for missing the question! Looking through them, I don't think that any of the financial sums in the article can be compared using the Consumer Price index - they look like they are all big projects, corporate profit/loss figures etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• There are quite a lot of duplicate links, along with some things that don't need to be linked (like common units of measurement).
• "the" before a ship name is generally incorrect - you wouldn't use "the" before a person's name, for instance.
• According to the Kilroy was here article, its origins are unclear and may well predate WWII.
• File:Schooner 'Thomas W. Lawson' 1902-1907a.jpg - needs a US PD tag (which will require a pre-1923 date of publication, not just a date the photo was taken)
• File:JapanFirstSubmarines.jpg - needs a source (and it should be {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}, not {{pd-old}})
• File:O type submarines at Boston.jpg - needs the US Navy PD tag instead of the generic US tag
• File:Fore River gantry cranes circa 1922.jpg - needs date of publication, not date of photo

More to follow later. Parsecboy (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

---

• Not promoted. Nominator is inactive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Dassault Rafale

Nominator(s): --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I've helped to revamp it and feel it meets all of MILHIST's A-class criteria. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments It's good to see this article on what's probably the best-looking fighter ever built developed to such a high standard. I have the following comments:

• "France entered into an arrangement with four other European nations to produce an agile multi-purpose fighter, but subsequent disagreements over workshare and differing requirements led to France's pursuit of its own development program" - I'd suggest splitting this complex sentence into two sentences

• @Nick-D: Done. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• " It has also been marketed for export to several countries" - I'll comment more on this later, but this seems overly positive: the key feature in the literature I've read on attempts to sell this aircraft is the failure of multiple well-credentialed bids.

• Reworded. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• "As the Rafale would replace such a wide range of aircraft in the French Armed Forces, it justifies the high cost of exclusive French development of the airframe, avionics, propulsion system and armament," - the tense is a bit off here, and this argument should probably be attributed to someone/some organisation.

• Reworded. Not really an argument. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• This sentence lacks a clear topic now. My concern here is that this is basically an opinion - the French could arguably have gotten similar results at a lower cost (and risk) from staying in the Eurofighter program. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Reworded. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The aircraft normally flies with 2,000-litre (528 US gal) external tanks, two Apache/Scalp cruise missiles, in addition to four air-to-air missiles." - what's meant by "normally" here? Is this the type's standard armament load in French service?

• Reworded. I'm positive that was the loadout during testing. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• "While the Navy initially carried out a modernising program of the Crusaders" - this is a bit wordy: how about "While the Navy initially modernised the Crusaders"?

• Done. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• "but the Gulf and Kosovo Wars showed that a second crew member is invaluable on strike and reconnaissance missions. Therefore, in 1991 " - a war which took place in 1998/9 obviously couldn't have influenced a 1991 decision

• Thanks for the pickup. Removed Kosovo. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• "As of 2011, a total of 180 Rafales has been ordered by France" - can this be updated? (also, 'has' should be 'have')

• Done. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• What will F3R standard involve?

• Added. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The Rafale M is the only fixed-wing combat aircraft flown by the Aviation Navale, and plans are to upgrade all airframes to the "F3" standard, with terrain-following 3D radar and nuclear capability, from early in the decade following 2010." - how's this going?

• Removed claim not found in ref. Added nuclear capability to following sentence. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• "In 2010, France ordered 200 MBDA Meteor beyond visual range missiles, greatly increasing the distance at which the Rafale can engage aerial targets" - you should probably note that these weapons are yet to enter service

• Done. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think that MIL-STD-1760 needs some kind of explanation

• Explanation provided. Please check. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• " minimizing the incorporation of " is a bit unclear Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Meant to write "minimizing the hassle of". Replaced minimizing with simplifying. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• "enabling customers to choose to readily incorporate many of their existing weapons and equipment" - this seems overly positive: weapons clearance trials can be quite time-consuming even when there are no software integration problems - which there often are

• Reworded. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• "In 1996, production of the M88-2 engine began and the first production engine was developed within that year" - should the first 'production' be 'development'?

• Corrected. The current interpretation was not too faithful to the ref. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The Rafale could operate in Libya without the support of Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) aircraft, using the onboard Spectra self-defense system instead" - this is stated earlier in the article

• I don't think there's any issue with repeating it. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• The section on India is a bit repetitive and could be cut by a paragraph or so

• Culled. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• There's been a fair bit of reportage on the Rafale's failure to win any export orders, but this isn't reflected in the article. The lack of foreign sales has led some commentators to conclude that the type is over-priced and/or inferior to the Typhoon and American designs, but the article doesn't capture this and instead presents a very positive picture of the Rafale's capabilities.

• You're right. Where do you think I should add a paragraph about it? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• @Nick-D: Added. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• That looks good. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• There's a fair bit of over-linking aircraft types in the Potential operators and failed bids sections

• Delinked. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• "However a leaked Swiss Air Force evaluation report revealed that the Rafale won the competition on technical grounds and Dassault offered to lower the price for 18 Rafales" - weren't the Gripens still cheaper overall?

• The figures in the ref still say that the Gripen is cheaper. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• The tweaked wording here addresses my comment: from memory, the Swiss Government confirmed that the Rafale had better performance, but justified the purchase of Gripens on cost grounds. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• "In 2002, the Republic of Korea Air Force chose the F-15K Slam Eagle over the Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and Sukhoi Su-35 for its 40 aircraft F-X Phase 1 fighter competition." - needs a citation

• Added. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• The Variants section needs citations. Also, what would the Rafale R involve? Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Added refs. I couldn't find much. This source says that the NG PDL "is due to enter service in mid-2018, at the same time as the new Rafale-R standard". --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Support My comments have now been addressed: nice work. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A few copyediting comments, not a complete review. - Dank (push to talk)

• "Several upgrades to the radar, engines, and avionics of the Rafale are planned to be introduced in the near future.": If for instance most of their development budget this year is allotted to upgrading radar, engines, and avionics, then it's better to say that ... report on something factual, not what's in the brochure.
• "advancement": This word means several things, including promotion to a military rank. It doesn't mean "advance".
• "unprecedented": peacocky.
• "were indigenously developed": I'm not sure what that means; I'm assuming it wasn't developed by Gauls.
• "These advancements have enabled the integration of formerly individual components and combined with intelligent automated analysis processes, known collectively as data fusion.": I have no idea what that means.
• "developed and produced for the Rafale programme. Originally scheduled to enter service in 1996, post-Cold War budget cuts and changes in priorities contributed to significant delays to the programme.": "Originally scheduled" should be closer to a noun it modifies. - Dank (push to talk) 00:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Opposing. There's an unfortunate pattern here. - Dank (push to talk) 14:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments: (have gone through as far as "Design")

• "The Rafale has been used in combat over Afghanistan, Libya, and Mali; features such as the SPECTRA integrated defensive-aids system have been crucial advantages in these theatres. " - the main text only lists SPECTRA as having helped in Libya.
• " In 1975, the French Ministry of Aviation initiated studies for a new aircraft to complement the upcoming and smaller Mirage 2000," - smaller than what? (no other actual aircraft has been mentioned yet)
• "In 1979, Dassault joined" - worth explaining what Dassault is on first use; e.g. "the French company Dassault joined"
• " that was lighter than a design desired by the other four nations." - if its a specific design, should be "than the design". "favoured" might be more natural than "desired" here, by the way.
• " roles previously filled by an assortment of dedicated platforms" - dedicated to what?
• "embodying fly-by-wire (FBW) flight control system." - "a fly-by-wire... system"?
• "it was smaller and more stealthy through the coating the canopy with gold" - the "through the coating" bit doesn't parse
• "This aircraft also saw extensive application of composite and other materials, which both reduce the radar cross-section (RCS) and weight" - tense of "reduce" (should be "reduced" to match the "saw")
• " It is 350 kilograms (772 lb) heavier than the single-seater, but carries 400 litres (106 US gal) less fuel." - again, tense diverges from the rest of the para
• "Later it saw validation roles regarding weapon separation" - what's a validation role?
• "Altogether, the naval modifications of the Rafale M increased its weight by 500 kilograms (1,100 lb) compared to other variants" - tense varies from the rest of the para
• "but the Gulf War showed that a second crew member is invaluable on strike and reconnaissance missions" - given it was 23 years ago, I'd advise "was invaluable"
• "The use of such software made the Rafale a "truly virtual aircraft", according to Dassault officials." - does anyone agree with this? It sounds a bit like sales-spin to me.
• "Deliveries of the Rafale's naval version was a high priority " - "were a high priority" Hchc2009 (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Procedural note: the nominator appears not to have been editing since the end of January, so not sure whether any of the more recent comments will end up getting addressed at this point...Nikkimaria (talk) 06:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

---

No consensus to promote at this time. Anotherclown (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Freedom from Fear (painting)

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I need the expertise of WP:MILHIST in regards to whether secondary sources are referring to Battle of Britain or The Blitz when they talk about the London bombings. There is significant controversy as to whether this article belongs to MILHIST, but without your attention, I will never figure out what the difference between the two articles are. They seem to overlap but not entirely, which is confounding to me. Both of these articles are linked this nominee. I am not sure if either is being referred to correctly or if any other related articles would be appropriate for wikilinkages in this article. I also need some advice in regards to whether there are articles for International reactions to the London Bombings or anything similar. In terms of this painting, I could use some advice on describing what the exact fear as it relates to the London Bombings. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• I don't think it actually falls under our purview because it only tangentially refers to the war.
  • I am willing to accept feedback without support.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• That said, I'll weigh in on Tony's questions. The Blitz started during the Battle of Britain, but continued long after the battle was over. It also directly refers to the bombing of civilians in Britain during the war, which was not a feature of the BoB as it was planned. While I haven't checked for actual articles, appropriate links might be strategic bombing or terror bombing. I'm not aware of any articles, or even secondary sources that focus on international reactions to the Blitz or any of the earlier terror bombings like Rotterdam or Warsaw.
  • Can you comment on whether the The Blitz and the Battle of Britain are being linked properly in the article. Among the relevant issues are Rockwell's reference to the "bombing of London".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• The exact fear in the painting? That the family doesn't have to worry about being blown to bits in their beds, the most secure place in their home.
  • Were they afraid of a blitzkrieg or aerial bombing? I.e., are these links that should be used in this article?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Blitzkrieg is a general term, not appropriate to this, despite the British contraction of the term for "the Blitz". Strategic or terror bombing are special cases of aerial bombing and are more appropriate as the subjects.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Nits: Don't capitalize issue in the lede and drop the bit about prominent thinker of the day. I'd rather say that the mother is adjusting the covers, rather than the bedsheet.
  • IIRC you are also from the United States. Maybe regionally there are differences, but to me the sheets are a different thing than the covers. She is adjusting the secondary bed sheet, sometimes known as the flat sheet, rather than the fitted sheet or primary bed sheet that one sleeps on.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
    • The "covers" is a more general term that includes flat sheet, blanket, coverlet, bedspread, etc. in my experience. Everything that rests on the sleeper.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Issue fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• I'm fairly certain that there were more than one war bond drive, so watch your phrasings.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Changed to second.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts:

• "Freedom from Fear is the last of the well-known Four Freedoms oil paintings produced by the American artist Norman Rockwell that were based on the four goals called the Four Freedoms enunciated by the President of the United States Franklin D. Roosevelt in his State of the Union Address delivered on January 6, 1941. " - a long sentence for the lead, worth breaking in half after "Rockwell".
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• "The works were inspired by United States President, Franklin D. Roosevelt in a State of the Union Address," - "the United States President"? It also needs a comma after Roosevelt.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• "The Blitz was a period of sustained strategic bombing of the United Kingdom by Germany..." The paragraph needs something to explain how this is linked to the painting; the main text hasn't explained the link yet
  • It was mentioned in the WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• " the kids are already asleep." - in Brit English, "kids" would be quite informal, and unencyclopaedic in tone; not sure if this is the same in US English.
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• "all Arlington, Vermont neighbors of Rockwell." - "all neighbors of Rockwell in Arlington, Vermont." might read more smoothly.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• "Ironically, the day it was published," - why is it ironic?
  • Changed to "coincidentally"--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• "that was not newly created." - it was newly created, given the date. Is the point that it had already been produced for a different client?
  • Revised.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• " The Four Freedoms Tour raised over $130,000,000 in war bond sales. Rockwell's Four Freedoms paintings were also reproduced as postage stamps by the United States Post Office." - citation needed for this bit. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

---

No consensus to promote at this time. Anotherclown (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Glina massacres

Nominator(s): 23 editor (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...I feel that it could benefit from undergoing, and meeting the standards required by, a MILHIST A-Class review. I've expanded this article four or five-fold and feel that it is now ready. I will be available to address all constructive comments and criticism. 23 editor (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments; not a complete review. - Dank (push to talk)

• "The Glina massacres were genocidal massacres": repetition
• "The Glina massacres were genocidal massacres of Serb peasants in the Croatian town of Glina during World War II. Described by journalist Tim Judah as being amongst the most infamous of the early atrocities perpetrated": Too much. We know that massacres and genocide are bad; "perpetrated", "infamous" and "atrocities" weaken rather than strengthen that point.
• "under 2,000": This isn't idiomatic in the way that "over 2,000" is. "just under 2,000", maybe.
• "alight": "on fire" is a little better.
• "In response, the Archbishop of Zagreb, Aloysius Stepinac, sent a letter of protest to Ustaše leader Ante Pavelić after receiving news of the massacre.": One of "in response" and "after receiving news of the massacre" should go.
• "However, he failed to condemn the atrocity publicly.": I wondered what the significance of this was until I read the text. I recommend adding: ", and was later tried for collaborating with the Ustaše by Yugoslavia's new Communist government."
• "after being deceived into thinking they would be subjected to a mass conversion to Roman Catholicism.": after being invited to celebrate a mass conversion to Roman Catholicism.
• "A man named Ljubo Jednak was the only survivor of this massacre. He went on to testify against Stepinac at his 1946 collaboration trial and against ...": Ljubo Jednak, the only survivor of this massacre, testified at both Stepinac's 1946 trial and the 1986 trial of ...
• "he committed suicide by slitting his wrists with a razor blade.": Probably more detail than is needed for the lead. "he committed suicide", or at most, "he committed suicide by slitting his wrists"
• "the facility was devastated": the facility was demolished
• I got down to the end of the lead section. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 22:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Dank. I've addressed your comments with this edit . All the best, 23 editor (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC) (I'll get started shortly)

• an initial comment regarding the two massacres per se. Given the massacres listed here occurred in mid-May and very late July/early August (ie about ten weeks apart), what is the connection between the two that links them (other than the location)? There are some significant issues about the second massacre that I will go into later, but the first massacre is very well sourced and the numbers are reasonably consistent. For the second one, the sources are not anywhere as as good. I would consider splitting this article into two, one for the first massacre, and one for the second.
• try to avoid citations in the lead, either the massacres were genocidal and this well supported by multiple sources in the body, or it is not. If it is not, get rid of the "genocide" reference in the lead, and if it is, make sure it is well cited in the body, but get rid of the citation in the lead.
• The Stepinac mention in the lead doesn't follow. Why would we introduce him there? Was he involved? The answer is no. So he is really there to support a particular POV on the atrocities of the Ustase (ie the Catholic vs Orthodox angle). He had no role in the massacres, so he should be relegated to the body, as his involvement was after the fact.
• Communist in the lead is not a proper noun, ie no initial cap.
• the estimates of Grandits and Promitzer have been given prominence in the lead, why? The overall estimates range from 960-2,417? Seems incongruous given the range.
• the last para of the lead mentions independence and then "after the war". This needs more explanation, I believe you are referring to the war of independence?
• also in the last para of the lead, there are references to a monument, a marble plaque, a memorial, and a memorial pavilion. It isn't clear if these are all one and the same, different things or what exactly, needs clarification.

(done to bottom of lead, more to come)

Hi, Peacemaker. I'll try to address your comments as best I can. I'll start with some of the smaller points: I've removed Stepinac from the lead, I've removed the cap in communist, the "genocidal" reference I've removed because although sources agree that the anti-Serb campaign was genocidal, only one source suggests that the massacres themselves were. I've removed Grandits and Promitzer from the lead and provided a range used by historians instead. I think I've clarified the monument/marble plaque/memorial/memorial pavilion story. Give it a look and tell me what you think.

Now for the most important point, the actual scope of the article: It would appear that I've set the structure of the article up wrong. Making sections such as "first massacre" and "second massacre" really isn't helpful when you consider that genocide researcher Mark Levene states that up to 5 different massacres happened in Glina in 1941. Although he doesn't go into detail over what each massacre was, I would assume he means the 11/12 May killings, the 13 May murders, the 30 July killings, the 3 August killings and another pair of mass murders. Technically speaking, these were all their own incidents. Yet, they occurred within a short time of each other in the same town. The victims were the same, as were the perpetrators. Glina massacres would be the most accurate way of describing the events, considering how little has been written about each individual massacre as opposed to the bigger picture that is provided when the killings are put in historical context and in context with each other. How about I structure the article as follows: "May 1941" for what has up until now been called the "first massacre" and "July-August 1941" for what has up till now been called the "second massacre"? Instead of having "first" and "second" massacre in the infobox layout for number of deaths, how about I list the 2,000-2,400 overall death toll that is provided in the lead? 23 editor (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

That all makes a lot of sense to me, giving them numbers (except for the first one), is almost OR. I'm a bit concerned about the lack of coverage in reliable academic (and third party) sources for all of the massacres you have mentioned (and the casualties), but I'll reserve my judgement until you've restructured. If I get a chance I'll go through my library and see if I can find anything else on them. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: I've made some changes based on the plan I outlined above. What do you think? 23 editor (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Co-ord cmt: have these issues been addressed? This review has now been open for nearly three months (well past the 28 days) so unfortunately I think we need to consider closing with no consensus in the next 24 hours unless additional reviewers can be found. Anotherclown (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I only reviewed the lead, and I have some concerns about some of the sources used in for this article.

• The Edmond Paris source was published by the American Institute for Balkan Affairs, which published mainly work by Lazo Kostic. Kostic was briefly a minister in the collaborationist government of Milan Acimovic during the war, and after the war he was active in defending the wartime activities of Draza Mihailovic, and also made several outlandish claims, including that all Bosnian Muslims were in fact Bosnian Serbs. Given this, I have reservations about Paris' book, on the basis of it lacking a reliable publishing house. The photograph in the infobox is corroborated from Paris' book.
• The Cornwell book has been roundly criticised by highly respected academics for making unsubstantiated claims about Pius XII.
• There is a strong reliance on Glenny (a journalist), and Mirkovic (a sociologist) for the details of the latter massacres. I haven't checked all the citations for accuracy, but in one case Hoare says "perhaps as many as 2,000 Serbs were murdered", indicating some reservation about the figure, but this is not reflected in the article, per "Hoare writes that as many as 2,000 Serbs were murdered."[33]

• It also needs clarification that the last sentence of the May 41 section is actually referring to what the Popen knew, not Stepinac.
• Given the length of time this has been open, my reservations, and the fact that we only have two partial reviews, I believe the article should not be promoted at this time. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

---

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.