Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasks
AcademyAssessmentA-Class
review
ContestAwardsMembers
Instructions
Requesting a review

To request the first A-Class review of an an article:

  1. Please double-check the MILHIST A-class criteria and ensure that the article meets most or all of the five (a good way of ensuring this is to put the article through a good article nomination or a peer review beforehand, although this is not mandatory).
  2. If there has been a previous A-Class nomination of the article, before re-nominating the article the old nomination page must be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article/archive1 to make way for the new nomination page.
  3. Add A-Class=current to the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (this should be added immediately after the class= or list= field, see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax).
  4. From there, click on the "currently undergoing" link that appears in the template (below the "Additional information" section header). This will open a page pre-formatted for the discussion of the status of the article.
  5. List your reason for nominating the article in the appropriate place, and save the page.
  6. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of A-Class review requests below.
  7. Consider reviewing another nominated article (or several) to help with any backlog (note: this is not mandatory, but the process does not work unless people are prepared to review. A good rule of thumb is that each nominator should try to review at least three other nominations as that is, in effect, what each nominator is asking for themselves. This should not be construed to imply QPQ).

An article may be nominated a second (or third, and so forth) time, either because it failed a prior nomination, or because it may no longer meet the standards and may thus need to be considered for demotion (i.e. it needs a re-appraisal). In this case, please leave a message for the project coordinators, who will be happy to help.

There are no formal limits to how many articles a single editor can nominate at any one time; however, editors are encouraged to be mindful not to overwhelm the system. A general rule of thumb is no more than three articles per nominator at one time, although it is not a hard-and-fast rule and editors should use their judgement in this regard.

Commenting

The Milhist A-Class standard is deliberately set high, very close to featured article quality. Reviewers should therefore satisfy themselves that the article meets all of the A-Class criteria before supporting a nomination. If needed, a FAQ page is available. As with featured articles, any objections must be "actionable"; that is, capable of rectification.

If you are intending to review an article but not yet ready to post your comments, it is suggested that you add a placeholder comment. This lets other editors know that a review is in progress. This could be done by creating a comment or header such as "Reviewing by Username" followed by your signature. This would be added below the last text on the review page. When you are ready to add comments to the review, strike out the placeholder comment and add your review. For instance, strike out "reviewing" and replace it with "comments" eg:

Comments Reviewing by Username

Add your comments after the heading you have created. Once comments have been addressed by the nominator you may choose to support or oppose the nomination's promotion to A-class by changing the heading:

Support / Oppose Comments reviewing by Username

If you wish to abstain from either decision, you may indicate that your comments have been addressed or not addressed. For instance:

Comments Reviewing by Username addressed / not addressed

This makes it easy for the nominator and closer to identify the status of your review. You may also wish to add a closing statement at the end of your comments. When a nominator addresses a comment, this can be marked as {{done}} or {{resolved}}, or in some other way. This makes it easy to keep track of progress, although it is not mandatory.

Requesting a review to be closed

A nominator may request the review be closed at any time if they wish to withdraw it. This can be done by listing the review at ACRs for closure, or by pinging an uninvolved co-ord. For a review to be closed successfully, however, please ensure that it has been open a minimum of five days, that all reviewers have finalised their reviews and that the review has a minimum of at least three supports, a source review and an image review. The source review should focus on whether the sources used in the article are reliable and of high quality, and in the case of a first-time nominator, spot-checking should also be conducted to confirm that the citations support the content. Once you believe you have addressed any review comments, you may need to contact some of the reviewers to confirm if you have satisfied their concerns.

After A-Class

You may wish to consider taking your article to featured article candidates for review. Before doing so, make sure you have addressed any suggestions that might have been made during the A-class review, that were not considered mandatory for promotion to A-class. It can pay to ask the A-class reviewers to help prepare your article, or you may consider sending it to peer review or to the Guild of Copy Editors for a final copy edit.

Current reviews[edit]

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

45th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

45th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The 45th Infantry Division was a second-line Territorial Army division that was active for most of the war, and did not see service outside of the UK. The division guarded vulnerable points, was relegated to home defense, aided in the admin/logistical side of Overlord, and was then stripped of its assets to reinforce combat formations. In 1944, it was disbanded and then recreated as a holding division. In this role, it aided in the retraining and rehabilitation of those not up to fitness standards, ex-POWs, and returning troops. It was demobbed at the end of the war, and not reformed. It has been looked over by the GOCE, and has recently passed a GA review.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias[edit]

  • The article needs a bit of work to make it MOS compliant:
    • The General officers commanding table needs row and column scopes to meet MOS:ACCESS (see MOS:DTT).
      Rows and columns addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Similarly, can you confirm whether the Order of battle show/hide functionality meets the requirements of MOS:COLLAPSE?
      I believe it does meet the requirements, per the MOS: "Collapsed or auto-collapsing cells or sections may be used with tables if it simply repeats information covered in the main text (or is purely supplementary, e.g. several past years of statistics in collapsed tables for comparison with a table of uncollapsed current stats)." At present, the information in the collapsible sections supplement and in some cases repeat information that is already in the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Full review to follow. Harrias talk 19:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Russian battleship Knyaz Suvorov[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Russian battleship Knyaz Suvorov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Knyaz Suvorov was the flagship of the Second Pacific Squadron which was sent to the Far East during the Russo-Japanese War to replace the ships that had been sunk by the Japanese. After an epic journey halfway around the world, the ship and two of her sisters were sunk during the Battle of Tsushima in May 1905 off the Korean coast. I'd like for reviewers to look for the usual suspects in preparation for an eventual FAC. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

As always I claim my seat here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  • after her completion to break the Japanese blockade of Port Arthur Pipe Japanese to the Empire of Japan.
  • Strange that the lwl of the ships isn't in the infobox?
  • The speed isn't the same in both the infobox and the body?
  • General-Admiral of the Imperial Russian Navy No need for an hyphen.
  • of Nosy Be off the north-west coast of French Madagascar British north-west.
  • Shortly afterwards, Rozhestvensky was knocked unconscious by a splinter British afterwards.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Source review

  • Some refs have state or country (sometimes abbreviated, sometimes not) and others don't - I'd standardize one way or the other
  • I wonder if you ought to include the original publication year for Corbett?
  • Does the Taras book in further reading have an ISBN/OCLC?

Parsecboy (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Arthur Blackburn[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Arthur Blackburn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Blackburn is the latest in my series on South Australian Victoria Cross recipients. He is arguably the state's most famous soldier, having won the VC at Pozières in WWI, then commanded a machine-gun battalion against the Vichy French, then an ad hoc brigade-sized force in Java against the Japanese. Captured, he spent the rest of the war being shipped from one place to another with a group of senior Allied POWs, and was liberated in Manchuria, of all places. I recently finished reading Andrew Faulkner's excellent (but huge) 2008 biography of Blackburn, which resulted in a significant expansion over several months. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, PM, nice work, as always. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  • the infobox years of service start date is 1914, but it should probably be 1911
  • suggest maybe moving the link for Gallipoli Campaign to earlier in the Gallipoli section (in the body of the article)
  • "Outer Harbour" --> "Outer Harbor" as a proper noun?
  • Blackburn returned to legal practice: rough date for this? Probably "In early 1917" would do
  • contentious period in the organisation --> "contentious period in the organisation's history"?
  • his words were chosen well and delivered with authority: suggest attributing this to Faulkner in text
  • labour in a industrial dispute --> "labour in an industrial dispute"
  • With the amalgamation of light horse regiments --> "Following the amalgamation of light horse regiments..."?
  • On 14 January, in --> suggest adding the year here, and removing it from "On 1 February 1942"
  • the Orcades armoury --> "the Orcades' armoury"
  • Melbourne is overlinked, as is Java, Boys anti tank rifle, Bandung, and Roy Inwood
  • "File:Football match between South Australian and Tasmanian members.JPG": probably should have a PD-AustraliaGov licence
  • I'm not sure about the use of the grenade image -- seems out of place in a bio, but it isn't a major concern if you don't agree
    G'day AustralianRupert, all done. Here are my edits. I reckon the Mills bomb is an iconic weapon of the Pozieres fighting Blackburn was involved in, and unfortunately there are no good pics of the aftermath of the battle that I could find on the AWM website, so decided on it as a reasonable illustration of the fighting and hopefully interesting for the general reader. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    No worries, looks good. I always find myself wondering how Robin and Blackburn must have felt out there alone around the Third Ridge, and what their horizon looked like at their defining moment. I came across the story on a plaque in a hallway what seems a lifetime ago when I was posted to a unit that was co-located with AUR and found it quite compelling. Must have been like being cast adrift and yet somehow they made it through. I always regret reading about Robin's fate; reminds me of so many others who were lucky, and then ran out of luck. Anyway, sorry for the ramble. Fascinating life story. Thanks for your work on it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    Bloody scary I would reckon. No wonder they high-tailed it back to the rest of the battalion. Thanks again, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • and after re-organising and training in Egypt Pipe Egypt to the Sultanate of Egypt.
  • and was appointed the coroner for the city of Adelaide Link coroner.
  • became a prominent Sydney doctor Unlink Sydney.
  • Sailing via Fremantle and Colombo Add Ceylon after Colombo and pipe Ceylon with British Ceylon.
  • Sailing via Fremantle and Colombo, the ship arrived at Alexandria, Egypt Pipe Egypt to the Sultanate of Egypt.
    All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • He was soon promoted to lance corporal Link lance corporal.
    Already linked for Robin. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • establishing that the Germans were holding a trench Pipe Germans to the German Empire.
    Now done even earlier. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • 16 October for six months' rest, arriving home via Melbourne on 3 December Unlink Melbourne.
    Why? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • As I can tell it has almost 4 million people and I watched some YouTube videos with non-Australians who talk about Melbourne.
  • Oh never mind that.
  • Standardise the directions like this. An example "north-east" v. "southwest".
    Standardised. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Link Allied.
    Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • in the aftermath of Japan entering the war Pipe Japan to the Empire of Japan.
  • Formosa and flown to Japan, Pusan in Korea Link Korea.
  • The next flight was across the Himalayas to Calcutta in British India Unlink the Himalayas too common to link it.
    All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • About 12:00 on 2 March, five Japanese light tanks Maybe change 12:00 with noon?
    Prefer to stick to 24-hour clock. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • it did not even have any Bren light machine guns --> "but it also did not even have any Bren light machine-guns".
    Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In accordance with normal procedures, while serving in the AIF A little bit wordy here.
    This was questioned in previous reviews of similar articles, as most would not be familiar with the set-up of being promoted in one force while serving in another. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • See a lot of "machine gun"s without a hyphen.
    I think they are fine as long as it is consistent and not being used as a compound adjective. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Part 2

  • where they remained onboard for the next seven weeks. Split "onboard".
    Replaced with aboard, which is better. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • but another four were killed by machine gun fire Merge "gun fire".
    I don't agree with this. machine gun fire is fine, AFAIK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • May I ask you why not?
  • Sure. A machine gun is a distinct thing, fire is what the machine gun produces. Machine gunfire isn't right, because machine gun and fire must be separated (or if we were adopting machine-gun, fire would still be separated from machine-gun). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • May I ask you why not?
  • "Undercover" has a different meaning from "under cover". "Undercover" means "secret work within a community or organization", "under cover" means being under the cover of something, hiding behind a physical feature or moving under covering fire, for example. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Blackburn embarked at Southampton for Australia onboard the hospital ship Split "onboard".
    Replaced with aboard, which is better. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • after which Blackburn molded the various separately American molded.
    Quite right. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your review, CPA-5! Just a couple I'm not sure about. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Hey PM I added more comments here and I replied to some of your responses, so have fun. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I again replied to your responses PM. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

SMS Roon[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

SMS Roon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

As part of my commitment to keeping the A-class page from being entirely occupied by battleships, I bring you...an armored cruiser! This is another dusty old article I started all the way back in 2007 - it's obviously come a fair way since then. This is one more step toward turning this Good Topic in a Featured one. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Great to see you again PB. Thanks for the help, mate, I need 27 nominations before I reached the 100th review before October. It is also really hard to review GANs due everyone wants to claim those since the drive is active. This would be a challenge to reach my goal and work on the drive itself too. I'm lucky to have the peer reviews (which are six left) to review. I assume there wouldn't be a lot of ARCs nor GANs. :p Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Haha, I'll do my best to help you out ;) I'm halfway through SMS Loreley (1859), so keep your eyes peeled for when that goes to GA ;)
  • being laid down in August 1902, launched in June 1903 Just a question, but do we have to add the specific dates like the infobox? It looks more right to add the specific dates in the lead and body but that's just my view of reading.
    • I don't generally give the specific date in the lead (and actually, I've gotten away from much specificity in the lead lately)
  • and made several cruises in the Atlantic Ocean Unlink Atlantic Ocean due common term.
    • Done
  • Infobox: "Commissioned:2 Aguust 1914" "Aguust"? Nice try to cover this one to us. ;p
    • Haha, whoops!
  • Looks like you forgot to add that she was scrapped in 1921 in the body.
    • No, it's there - "...struck from the naval register on 25 November 1920 and scrapped the following year..."
  • You forgot to mention how many screw propellers and triple-expansion steam engines she had in the body.
    • Fixed
  • "21.1 knots (39.1 km/h; 24.3 mph)" Link knots.
    • It's linked earlier
  • "4,200 nmi (7,800 km; 4,800 mi)" Link nmi.
    • Done
  • You forgot to mention how many officers and enlisted men she has in the body.
    • Added
  • which increased horsepower by 2,000 indicated horsepower (1,500 kW) Link kW.
    • Fixed this to standardize on PS/ihp
  • She displaced 9,533 t (9,382 long tons; 10,508 short tons) as built and 10,266 t (10,104 long tons; 11,316 short tons) fully loaded This sentence uses short tons while the rest doesn't.
    • Fixed
  • developed a total of 19,000 metric horsepower (14,000 kW) and yielded a maximum Unlink kW.
    • As above
  • range of up to 4,200 nautical miles (7,800 km; 4,800 mi) at a cruising speed of 12 knots (22 km/h; 14 mph) Unlink both km/h and mph.
    • good catch
  • the lower edge of the belt by 40–50 mm (1.6–2.0 in) thick sloped armor Is it possible to round the nought?
    • Not without rounding the 1.6" up to 2", unfortunately.
  • Pipe German with the German Empire.
    • Done
  • on 8 April and crossed the Atlantic to Hampton Roads, Virginia Link Virginia and unlink Atlantic.
    • Done
  • included contingents from Great Britain, Japan, Austria-Hungary, France, Italy, and several other nations Pipe/link Japan, Austria-Hungary and Italy with the Empire of Japan and Kingdom of Italy.
    • Done
  • ship went on a major cruise into the Atlantic Ocean from 7 to 28 February 1908 Unlink Atlantic Ocean.
    • Done
  • caught them by surprise and damaged one of them.[22][18] Re-order the refs here.
    • Fixed

That's anything from me. Now excuse me but I have some work to do here. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • You're welcome mate. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment from Indy beetle[edit]

  • Like many of the late armored cruisers, Yorck was quickly rendered obsolescent by the advent of the battlecruiser; as a result, her career was limited. Err, typo?

-Indy beetle (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in great shape. I have a few comments:

  • in the lead, was the lack of manpower also a reason for her decommissioning in 1916?
    • Hildebrand didn't mention it this time - I'd suspect that Roon would have otherwise still been useful in the Baltic if not for the submarines
  • "which increased horsepower by 2,000 metric horsepower" repetition of horsepower here, could the first one be changed to "power" or "output"?
    • Changed to "power"
  • suggest linking armored cruiser at first mention in the body
    • Good idea
  • suggest abbrev=off and lk=on for the first displacement conversion
    • Done
  • should the speed be as designed, or trial speed because she didn't manage it?
    • Usually I go with design speed, but in this case I think trial makes more sense
  • perhaps be consistent with the armour measurements in the body and infobox, one is mm, the other cm
    • Good idea
  • perhaps link flagship at first mention in the body
    • Done
  • no first name for KAdm Jacobsen? and redlink?
    • There's a hidden note in the article there - <!--which one, Hermann or Leo?--> - Hildebrand don't give us a first name, and both Hermann and Leo Jacobsen were active at the time. I'd guess Hermann, since he was promoted to Vizeadmiral in 1911, while Leo was attained that rank in 1916 (so a Konteradmiral billet in 1908 makes more sense to me for the former), but I can't say for certain
  • just for clarity, suggest " IV Group"→" IV Scouting Group"
    • Works for me
  • "Commander Jones"→"Commander Loftus Jones"
    • Done
  • "Beatty"→"<rank> David Beatty"
    • Done
  • "while Hopman relocated to Roon while his flagship" could you vary the wording to get rid of the while... while?
    • Reworded
  • "was under repairs for a torpedo hit to cover a minelaying operation"?
    • Split that sentence up
  • move the description and link to Albatross to first mention
    • Done
  • "by four Russian cruisers" is sort of made redundant by then listing four cruisers, suggest dropping it
    • Done
  • any info about casualties from the hits during the Battle of Åland Islands?
    • No
  • link training ship, accommodation ship, seaplane carrier and ship breaking
    • Done

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks as always. Parsecboy (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
No worries, supporting. Great work on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

HMS Audacious (1912)[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

HMS Audacious (1912) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Audacious had the briefest career of any British battleship, only a single year from when she commissioned in October 1913 to her loss after striking a mine in October 1914. While this makes the article considerably shorter than most of mine, I'd still like reviewers to look for the usual suspects in preparation for an eventual FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Great, if brief, article. I have a few minor comments:

  • could more information be provided regarding the main battery layout? Superfiring pairs fore and aft and... ?
  • the rounding of the main turret armour needs tweaking between the body and infobox
  • suggest "in accordance with instructions the other dreadnoughts"

That's it from me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, PM.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

  • She was sunk by a German naval mine Pipe German to the Empire of Germany.
  • off the northern coast of County Donegal, Ireland Link Ireland.
  • powered by two sets of Parsons direct-drive steam turbines Sea blue here.
    • That's the best wording that I've been able to come up with; happy to take suggestions, though.
  • Still sea of blue. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Arriving in Portland on 25 July, she was ordered Maybe add "island" before Portland? I mean the US has even two Portlands.
  • Portland isn't linked there. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Replied to your replies. I didn't forget this one, I was just busy with the drive and reviews. My plan was to have another look in the coming days. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Source review

  • Per the Bulwark review, wrecksite needs to go
  • Some refs have states or countries, others don't - I'd recommend standardizing one way or the other (I prefer without for simplicity's sake)
  • Apart from the first point, references are high quality, from reliable publishers, etc.
  • I'd probably ditch the youtube search link - we don't need to be lmgtfy. Parsecboy (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Russian battleship Borodino[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Russian battleship Borodino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Never intended to serve in the Far East, Borodino and her sisters were sent there during the Russo-Japanese War to replace the Pacific Squadron that had been sunk by the Japanese, although they had just been completed and hadn't had time to finish working up before they sailed. After an epic journey halfway around the world, the ship and two of her sisters were sunk during the Battle of Tsushima in May 1905 off the Korean coast. I'd like for reviewers to look for the usual suspects in preparation for an eventual FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in great shape. I have only a couple of comments:

  • suggest putting o/a after the length in the infobox
  • suggest "Pakenham observed two 12-inch hits on Borodino" just to make it clear, as another Russian ship has been mentioned

That's it. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, PM.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Claim my seat here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Borodino (Russian: Бородино) was the lead ship Unlink Russian here.
  • In the note All dates used in this article are New Style maybe we shoule let the people know how many days the difference is between Old and New style especially before 1900 there were 12 days and after 1900 there are 13 days differences?
  • Did the Russian Navy used their own units? Because I thought it already uses metric at the time?
    • The Russians didn't switch to metric until after the Revolution
  • off the north-west coast of Madagascar on 9 January 1905 pipe Madagascar to French Madagascar.
  • controlled by the Russians in the Far East Link Far East.
    • Linked in the lede.
  • 3rd Pacific Squadron, commanded by Rear Admiral Nikolai Nebogatov Link Rear Admiral.

That's anything, I think. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  • You're welcome, mate. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Parsecboy[edit]

  • I'd like to see a bit more context on the class than you have here - you might add a line stating the reason they were built, the Russo-Japanese rivalry, etc.
    • As these were Baltic Fleet ships, they weren't part of the big build up of the Pacific Fleet; all those ships were sunk or captured before Tsushima.
      • Ah, I was going off what you had in the class article - perhaps that needs to be fixed then ;) Parsecboy (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
        • At the very least re-examined :-( Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
          • Rereading McLaughlin, he says that the "For the Needs of the Far East Program" initially authorized 10 battleships to be deployed there, which meant four new ships as 3 Pobedas and 3 Petropavlovsks were already there. As Russian shipyards were already backlogged, two of these became the foreign-built Retzivan and Tsesarevich and the Tsar subsequently authorized another pair, leaving four still to be built. The next ships authorized were the five Borodinos, but nowhere can I find an explicit mention them as part of the "For the Needs of the Far East Program". If I add that to the articles is that OR since I can't find anybody to actually say as much or is that a perfectly reasonable assumption?@Parsecboy: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
            • Yeah, that's probably a bit too much of a stretch - the Russians would've been concerned with strengthening the Baltic Fleet at that time too, so they might have been ordered for that instead. It's a shame that Russian ships are relatively poorly covered. Parsecboy (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
              • McLaughlin's pretty damn good, but I really wish somebody would translate the plentiful Russian-language sources which probably would answer these sorts of questions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── V. Yu. Gribosky's 1995 monograph Эскадренный броненосец «Бородино» explicitly states that the Borodino class were to form the core of the Pacific Fleet. I'm guessing this is where McLaughlin gets his info from. Kges1901 (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  • You have Second Pacific Squadron but also 3rd Pacific Squadron
  • One dupe link
  • Both this and Russian battleship Imperator Aleksandr III (1901) claim to be the second ship in the line - the OOB suggests it was Imperator Aleksandr III
    • No, I say it was the third ship in line. You might be confused because Alex (2nd in line) charges the Japanese after Suvorov was forced to fall out while Borodino then becomes the head of the line.
  • Any clue what happened to Yushin? Which is to say, who picked him up?

Parsecboy (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

    • Probably a Japanese torpedo boat or destroyer, but I can't find anything that identifies it. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Images are properly licensed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Source review:

  • Citations and references are formatted uniformly
  • References appear to be reliable
  • There's a short cite to Chesneau & Kolesnik but no full ref. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

ASV Mark III radar[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk)

ASV Mark III radar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is the radar that won the Battle of the Atlantic, along with its ship-mounted counterparts like the Type 271. With some fortuitous timing, which included the arrival of B-24s, the new frigates with huff-duff, and the Mark III, the German U-boat force was broken in a matter of months, never to recover. Also, the whole disinformation line is fun. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, Maury, overall this looks quite good and comprehensive. I have a few minor comments/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  • H2S radar is overlinked in the lead
Fixed. Did a link sweep over the entire article.
  • inconsistent spelling "realized" and "realised"
Urg, this is one of my pet peeves about Grammarly, which is otherwise superb and I recommend it to everyone, it gets confused about US vs. UK spelling.
  • in the body the following terms are overlinked: cathode ray tube, Eureka transpoding radar, night fighter, time base generator, lobe switching, waveguide, coaxial cable, slant range
All fixed.
  • advantage — the: should be an unspaced emdash or spaced endash depending on your chosen style
I hate both, I used the later.
  • where their higher resolution allowed them to detect small lifeboats.: needs a citation
Done.
  • a 9 inches (230 mm) cathode ray tube (CRT) --> "a 9-inch (230 mm) cathode ray tube (CRT)" - this can be achieved by adding "|adj=on" to the convert template
Added.
  • on a 6 inches (150 mm) CRT --> "on a 6-inch (150 mm) CRT"
ditto.
  • citation 21 has page numbers on the source, so it is probably best to use these in your citation - the work itself appears to have identified authors and a year of publication here: [1]:I added the page numbers but
Added.
  • citation 26 is inconsistently formatted - compare with Brown which you also only use once
  • citation 27 "Hanbury_Brown 1991, p. 311": the underscore should be a hyphen (or a space without the underscore, depending upon the answer to the next point below)
HB will be used more widely in the future.
  • in the Bibliography, Hanbury Brown should have a hyphen for consistency with the other entry (see Smith), or they should both have a space if you choose to render it that way
There is no dash etc in any reference I can find. How do I remove it from the SFN?
Removed this for you now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • inconsistent caps: "notably the new "Fliege" or "Additionally, fliege..."
Fixed.
  • in the Bibliography, Campbell should appear after Bowen; Gordon should appear before Hanbury-Brown
Done. Personally, I think we need to stop demanding this. We don't read these lists looking for entries, we link to them and click, so ordering is simply not important. The wikipedia is not printed, we shouldn't slavishly follow guidelines that only make sense in that medium. But no one listens to me.
  • ISSN for the IEE proceedings journal? Can probably be located here: [2]
Can't find it.
  • which corresponds to the introduction of Naxos --> "which corresponded to the introduction of Naxos"?
Fixed.
  • Unfortunately, these loops also...: best to avoid the word "unfortunately" per WP:EDITORIAL
Removed.
  • available units. Bomber Harris: rank and full name on first mention
Fixed.
G'day AR, are you happy with Maury's responses here? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, most of them have been addressed. The ones that remain are very minor. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

  • -ise vs -ize in some words which one should the article use?
ize I'm assuming as the UK spelling?
  • Both are allowed but -ise is more widely used in the UK. -ize is more part of university English.
  • 10 cm band compared to Mk. II's 1.5 m wavelength No English units and British units should be the primary units here.
Actually no, these were never measured in british units, wavelength has always been in meters since the very early days. I had a US radio from the 1940s that used inches, but the UK had switched over before this period and the US used the same units after the Tizard mission so their radars also used it. Every contemporary reference uses m and cm. "s-band" means "sentimeteric", a deliberate misspelling of the actual unit. You might think that "1.5 meter" implies something like "4 feet", but it's not like that, these bands are really just names.
  • Link MHz in the infobox.
Added, and s-band.
  • No English unit in the "Range" part in the infobox.
Someone else added?
  • Link kW and add volts too in the infobox.
Added kW. Watts measure power, volts measures, well, volts. These are not equivalent units so there's no conversion.
  • of reasons, the 1.5 m wavelength of the radar system No English unit?
  • produced microwaves at around 10 cm No English unit?
  • Link both kilowatts and microwave in the File:Original_cavity_magnetron,_1940_(9663811280).jpg image.
Overlinking?
  • I believe it is safe to add a link in an image because it is easier to click on the link instead of searching the link or searching it on Wikipedia itself same with tables. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • broadcast power from 7 to 100 kW Link kW here and add also volts here.
Again, where should the volts go here?
  • that operated on a 50 cm wavelength English unit?
  • the radar horizon being only 27 nautical miles (50 km; 31 mi) Link nautical miles here.
This is the convert tag, how do I do that?
  • the night of 1-2 March 1943 --> "the night of 1–2 March 1943" or "the night of 1/2 March 1943".
Fixed.
  • the end of the month, a full 30% of the U-boat Use per cent not % we only use it in tables and infoboxes.
Changed, but why is this?
  • while flying at 6,000 feet altitude No metric unit?
And, oddly enough, altitude is only ever measured in feet and angels. Even today.
  • detect signals in the 120 to 150 cm range No English units?
  • was sensitive between 75 and 300 cm No English units?
  • on the order of 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) Round the nought here.
How?
  • I believe it is unnecessary to use an extra nought here.
  • added antennas to detect 3 cm signals No English unit?
  • the Blind Approach Beacon System (BABS) at 173.5 MHz Link MHz.
Already linked in body.
  • Lucero was a transceiver tuned to the 1.5 m-band Remove the hyphen.
Removed.
  • Lucero's 500 W transmitter periodically Link watt.
Already linked on kW.
  • line with fixed steps indicating 1 mile (1.6 km) Use one instead of 1. Because every number below ten should be written in letters. Thus 3 should also be written in letters.
Convert tag, how do I do this?
  • and instead fixed at 1 mile range
  • This caused a -3 dB reduction What's a dB?
Linked.
  • in signal below about 40 kHz Link kHz.
Linked on first instance.
  • the 200 kW CV192 magnetron, compared to the original 40 kW version No volts?
  • would take 30 miles / 186,282 miles per second How much is that number in km/h?
It doesn't matter, it's still 0.00016 seconds.
  • submarine at 14 miles (23 km) at 1500 ft, 11 miles (18 km) at 1000 ft a number more than 999 should have a comma in each nummber.
added.
  • this significantly to 38.5 miles (62.0 km) Round the nought.
How?
  • All the refs with more than one page should be written in "pp" style not with a single "p". Also all the refs with more page numbers should have an "–".
Most of these are not page ranges, they are the format for single pages used in the reference. That is page 3 dash 4.
  • Ref 10, Remove the second 3 in the page numbers.
  • Ref 11, Switch the numbers.
  • Ref 12, Same as above.
  • Ref 16, "p. 3-4." --> "pp. 3–4."
  • Ref 26, No link of Blair?
Do you mean a link to the book? Added.
  • Ref 30, Switch the page numbers.
  • Ref 32, Same as above.
  • Ref 33, Same as above.
  • Ref 34, "p. 3-16." --> "pp. 3–16.".
  • Ref 35, "p. 3-15." --> "pp. 3–15.".
  • Ref 36, "p. 3-17." --> "pp. 3–17.".
  • Ref 43, "p. 372-375." --> "pp. 372–375.".
  • Ref 44, "p. 372-373." --> "pp. 372–373.".
  • Ref 45, "p. 3-9." --> "pp. 3–9.".
  • Ref 46, "p. 3-10." --> "pp. 3–10.".
  • Ref 47, "p. 3-11." --> "pp. 3–11.".
  • Ref 48, "p. 3-12." --> "pp. 3–12.".
  • Ref 49, "p. 3-13." --> "pp. 3–13.".

That"s anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

G'day CPA-5, are you happy with the above? Need any tweaks, have any additional points? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Most of my comments are adressed, but I am waiting until he addressed the rest. I'll ping him @Maury Markowitz:

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

The Battle of the Atlantic is one of the most interesting aspects of World War II, so it's great to see a high quality article on one of the most important Allied tools in this campaign. I have the following comments:

  • I'd suggest expanding the lead and the later sections to make it clear that this radar was a key element in the Allies' slaughtering German subs until the end of the war (and when the subs started using snorkels to minimise their vulnerability to radar they became largely ineffective) - the narrative sort-of stops in 1943
Indeed, expanded.
  • " becoming the first radar system to be mounted on an aircraft in a combat setting" - could this be changed to something like " becoming the first radar system to be mounted on combat aircraft"?
Fixed.
  • " However, the system was soon converted to follow the H2S model" - this is the first time H2S is mentioned in the article, and I think more information on what it is would be helpful
Indeed, expanded.
  • "Bomber Harris objected" - I'd suggest tweaking this to his proper name and position
Done.
  • "commander of Coastal Command, Philip Joubert de la Ferté" - I'd suggest adding his rank
This changed during this period and I'm not sure what it was at this point.
  • "The next night the same aircraft spotted a submarine at 7 miles (11 km) and successfully dropped depth charges on it" - does the source say which sub this was?
It does not, Lovell wasn't terribly interested in filling in details like this (which, admittedly, was somewhat out of context in his book).
  • "By May, the U-boats were being attacked continually from the moment they left port to the time they returned." - This is a bit of an over-statement. The Allies didn't operate close to German ports, and couldn't maintain contact with subs indefinitely
Improved, but it was continuous, they could encounter aircraft or hunter-killer groups anywhere from the Bay on, and this is the period where the mid-atlantic gap was covere:
  • "Even if they escaped into the Atlantic, boats were then attacked hundreds of miles from the convoys while they attempted to form up the wolfpacks. This was combined with the arrival of new frigates mounting microwave radars and huff-duff receivers, further hindering U-boat operations. Successfully forming up and pressing on to the convoys proved almost impossible" - what was the role of code breaking in this? (though, as I understand it, Huff Duff was more important). In general, the Allies sank subs when they approached convoys rather than roaming around the ocean.
It was the near simultaneous arrival of the ASV Mk III, the US versions of the same concept (ASG and DMS-1000), huff-duff, the new frigates and the enigma break of late 1943 that did it. If these had arrived peacemeal I don't think they would have been remotely as effective. Mark III was perhaps the least important of these, but that is what the article is about.
  • "one of the most effective disinformation campaigns of the war" - this doesn't seem to have been a "campaign". It was something a single quick witted officer said when interrogated. Disinformation campaigns were longer-lasting and very complex.
A better term? I used campaign simply because that's the term people use.
Something like "In spite of this early warning of a new system, German efforts were crippled by misinformation" seems more appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "that they finally began to consider" - specify who "they" is here
Added.
  • " It would later become clear that the Battle of the Atlantic was won with the introduction of Mark III" - this is also an overstatement. Historians generally argue that the Battle of Atlantic decisively turned in the favour of the Allies in mid-1943 due to multiple factors which became effective at pretty much the same time (this radar, code breaking, more and better aircraft, etc)
Removed.
  • As a suggestion for further improvements ahead of FAC, I suspect that Clay Blair's huge and authoritative works on the Battle of the Atlantic will have some useful material. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)