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

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Instructions

Requesting a review

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

1. Please double-check theMILHIST A-class criteriaand ensure that the article meets most or all of the five (a good way of ensuring this is to put the article through agood article nominationor apeer reviewbeforehand, 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 toWikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article/archive1to make way for the new nomination page.
3. AddA-Class=currentto the{{WPMILHIST}}project banner at the top of the article's talk page (e.g. immediately after theclass=orlist=field).
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. Refresh the article's talk page's cache by followingthese steps.(This is so that the article's talk page "knows" that the A-class review page has actually been created. It can also be accomplished in the 2010 wikitext editor by opening the page in edit mode and then clicking "save" without changing anything, i.e. making a "null edit". )
8. 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 implyQPQ).

Restrictions

1. An article may be nominated a second (or third, and so forth) time, either because it failed a prior nomination or because it was demoted and is now ready for re-appraisal. There is no limit on how quickly renominations of failed articles may be made; it is perfectly acceptable to renominate as soon as the outstanding objections from the previous nomination have been satisfied.
2. 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.
3. An article may not be nominated for an A-Class review and be aFeatured article candidate,undergoing aPeer Review,or have aGood article nominationat the same time.

Commenting

The Milhist A-Class standard is deliberately set high, very close tofeatured article quality.Reviewers should therefore satisfy themselves that the article meets all of theA-Class criteriabefore supporting a nomination. If needed,a FAQ pageis 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:

CommentsReviewingby 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 / OpposeComments reviewingby Username

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

CommentsReviewingby 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 atACRs 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, asource reviewand an image review. The source review should focus on whether the sources used in the article arereliableand 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 tofeatured article candidatesfor 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 theGuild of Copy Editorsfor a final copy edit.

Demotion

If an editor feels that any current A-class article no longer meet the standards and may thus need to be considered for demotion (i.e. it needs a re-appraisal) pleaseleave a message for the project coordinators,who will be happy to help.

A-Class review/reappraisal closure instructions for coordinators
	A-Class review		A-Class reappraisal
Closure takes place after minimum of five days	Pass • at least 3 comprehensive supports and • no outstanding criteria-based objections	Fail • less than 3 comprehensive supports or • outstanding criteria-based objections or • no consensus	Keep • clear consensus to keep or • no consensus	Demote • clear consensus to demote
{{WPMILHIST}}onarticletalk page	• ChangeA-Class=currenttoA-Class=pass	• ChangeA-Class=currenttoA-Class=fail	• ChangeA-Class=currenttoA-Class=kept	• ChangeA-Class=currenttoA-Class=demoted • Reassess article and record newclass
TheMilHistBotwill take care of the details. For detailed advice and manual procedure instructions see thefull Academy course.

Current reviews

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

SPARS

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s):Pendright(talk)

SPARS(edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)}

I am nominating this article for A-Class on behalf of Pendright.Hawkeye7(discuss)22:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

SPARSis about the Women who served in the U.S. Coast Guard Women's Reserve during WW II. Created by the U.S Congress, it authorized the USCG to replace male officers and enlisted men with women at shore stations. Working with the top-secretLORANproject was its most unique assignment. LORAN was a land-based radio navigation system developed to monitor locations of ships at sea and aircraft in flight. Monitoring stations were able to calculate a ship's exact location by measuring the amount of time each signal took to reach a ship. Chatham, Massachusetts, was staffed by SPARS and believed to be the only all-female staffed monitoring station of its kind in the world.Pendright(talk)20:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

HF

I'll try to review this soon. Please ping me if I haven't started in a week.Hog Farm_Talk00:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• "when Executive order 8929 directed the Coast Guard to operate as part of the Navy" -itlooks likeExecutive Order frequently has both words capitalized in sources

Upper cased -Pendright(talk)03:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• "expedite the war effort by providing for releasing officers and men for sea duty and replacing them with women in the shore establishment of the Coast Guard and for other purposes." - is this italicized portion a direct quote? If so, I think it would be clearer shown in quotation marks

Usediralicsfor emphasis:

Main page:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting § Italic type

Emphasis

Main page:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting § Emphasis

Italics are used for emphasis, rather thanboldfaceorcapitals.But overuse diminishes its effect; consider rewriting instead. With or withoutemphasisis fine with me.Pendright(talk)04:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• "which was the Women's Reserve of the U.S. Navy" - I think this can be ommitted, since the prior paragraph has introduced the WAVES and the Women's Naval Reserve

Frankly, I see no real benefit in omitting it, or any real harm in not omitting it. The use of repetition in writing is not uncommon. There are no rules or prohibitions against the judicious use of repetition in article writing.Pendright(talk)

• "The legislation passed in late 1942, and was signed into law on November 23." - this has already been stated in the background section

Deletedin late 1942Pendright(talk)21:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• The article title is SPARS with all letters capitalized, but throughout the article it is consistently SPARs with the last letter lowercase

Explanation: In June 2024, at my request, the article was copyedited by the Guild of Copy Editors and the editor left this comment:

As part of my recent GOCE edit, I tried to unify the usage/formatting of the term "SPARS" (and variants). Looking through the sources revealed a variety of usage, even within articles produced by one organization (such as the USCG online newsletter "My CG", searching forarticles tagged "SPARs"or "Spar" ). So I made some choices, based on USCG usage, and came up with my own 'standard'.

Pendright(talk)22:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

More to come later.Hog Farm_Talk01:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• LinkFrank Knox?

LinkedPendright(talk)00:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• "(Lt. (j.g.)—joined" - I think you're missing another closing paranthesis after the last one

Corrected: Lt. (j.g.) ->Lieutenant (junior grade)Pendright(talk)00:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Standardize between MIT and M.I.T.

Fixed - MITPendright(talk)00:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Is there anything that discusses why the SPARs were heavily from those sets of states? Was that the population centers in the 1940s, or was SPAR recruitment mainly focused in those areas?

These were the population centers at the time.Pendright(talk)00:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• "she was still in active service with a complement of eight officers and 40 enlisted" - I'm not seeing here the 8 and 40 figure is coming from.Thishas 8 and 42

::Info-box: Complement ->

8 Officers

40 EnlistedPendright(talk)03:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! changed text, source, and citation info

Pendright(talk)05:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hog Farm_Talk21:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Lockheed YF-22

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s):Steve7c8(talk)

Lockheed YF-22(edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I have added considerable amount of design history information compiled from several sources to give a summary of how the design came to be. I believe this article can be considered for A-class.Steve7c8(talk)14:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review

• GlobalSecurity.org is not considered a reliable source (WP:GLOBALSECURITY)

• The details in the Notes section require references

• Mullin (1992) is not used

• fn 53 and 58 say "William" instead of "Williams"

• Hehs, Mullin, Williams: location?
• I am not sure what issue Flight International (1990) refers to.

• fn 37, 45, 55: page numbers?

Hawkeye7(discuss)20:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• That Global Security image is a direct scan from the print version of the Code One Magazine article written by Eric Hehs, I'll adjust the citation accordingly.
• I've added references in the second, more detailed note.
• I'll move that to additional reading, but it's sort of a shorter summary that Mullin would expand his 2012 writing on.
• Fixed.
• Code One Magazine is for Hehs is based in Fort Worth, Texas. Mullin's publication is by USAFA affiliated Mitchell Aerospace Institute based in Arlington, VA. Williams' book publisher is based in Norwalk, CT or London depending on distribution.
• Those are listed again under bibliography with the full citation, I've moved it to references as the more appropriate section.
• Page numbers have been added for the first two, the last one doesn't have a page number.

Steve7c8(talk)00:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:YF-22A Advanced Technology Fighter.jpg,File:Two Lockheed-Boeing-General Dynamics YF-22s.jpg,File:YF-22 and YF-23.jpg,File:F-22 Raptor resumes flight testing - 030328-F-0000C-001.jpg,File:Lockheed-Boeing-General Dynamics YF-22 USAF.jpg- USAF images - PD in the United States - okay

• File:An air-to-air overhead view of the YF-22 advanced tactical fighter aircraft during a test flight DF-ST-92-09938.jpg- DOD image - PD in the United States - okay

• File:F-22 RFI.jpg- USAF image - a source would be nice

• File:Lockheed Faceted ATF.jpg,File:Lockheed Model 090P 300x172.jpg,File:Lockheed Boeing General Dynamics DemVal Proposal 300x359.jpg,File:F-22 design evolution 595 to 645 200x592.png,File:NATF-22 305x170.jpg- no-free image - has Fair Use rationale - okay

• File:YF-22 Lightning II "Rzuty" outline drawing.png- Wikipedian-generated image - PD - okay

All images have appropriate licences.Hawkeye7(discuss)20:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

HiSteve7c8,saving a spot, will add comments soon. Also, if you could wikimail me the two sources required for the YF-23 article, that would be great.Matarisvan(talk)17:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Schierbecker

Hiking the AT. Connection may be sporadic. Apologies for any curtness or disorganization of replies.

• Lede should state that Lockheed was the prime.
• US or U.S.? Consistency needed.
• The distinction betweenWP:GENREFand "Additional sources" is not usually seen on well-developed articles. Might be better to merge the Bibliography and Additional sources.
• Personally my eyes tend to glaze over when an article contains too many dates. Maybe only mention the exact date if its important (and it's going to be on the test) Also does Halloween need to wikilinked?
• Would prefer less passive voice (e.g. notthe Lockheed team was announced by Secretary of the Air Force Donald Rice as the winner of the ATF competition.)
• delta wings and pilot-induced oscillation are wikilinked only on the second mention. wl "FY", "S-duct", "thrust-vectoring". YF119 and YF120 overlinked. Image captions could stand to have more wls. It isn't considered overlooking.
• Advise adding brief in-text description of thePackard Commission(e.g. that it was a commission of president Reagan.).
• "SR-71-like" needs an en dash perMOS:SUFFIXDASH
• Re: the accident: were any design issues identified and corrected as a result?
• Pratt & Whitney and General Electric had earlier been awarded contracts to develop the propulsion systems with the designations YF119 and YF120Respectively? These engines were requirements for the selected aircraft? Furnished as government-furnished equipment? How and when was it determined to go forward with the YF119?
• Give nationality of SR-71/YF-12. Lockheed as designer seems relevant especially given that they proposed something like it.
• The top four proposals, later reduced to two, would proceed with Dem/Val.They selected four, then down selected to two? Who were the four? Or they had plans to select four contenders, but decided to only choose two?
• Because the requirement for flying prototypes was a late addition due to political pressure,awkward. consider rephrasing.
• The seven bids were submitted in July 1986.Were Lockheed, Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrop, and McDonnell Douglas the only teams that submitted proposals? Which teams submitted more than one proposal? Lockheed, Boeing and General Dynamics each submitted a proposal or proposals? Article makes it sound like Lockheed was the only contractor that responded during the concept development. True? Mention that Lockheed developed the F-117.
• Sherman Mullin would credit the Lockheed proposal's system engineering volume for the top rank.confused about what this means. Mullin says Lockheed got the contract for its manufacturing capabilities? Implying Northrop did not?
• Having performed poorly during ATF concept exploration while also losing the ATB to Northrop who had a curved surface design,meaning more clear if this is split in two sentences.
• Furthermore, the U.S. Navy under Congressional pressureTry: "Furthermore, under Congressional pressure, the U.S. Navy".
• Were there any differences in the stealth coating between the YF-22 and F-22?
• However, much of the scrutiny fell on Lockheed's Configuration 090PScrutiny from whom?

Schierbecker(talk)18:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Added statement that Lockheed is prime contractor
• Standardized on "U.S."
• As far as having two sections for generic references and additional sources, I think the latter is for works that's not directly cited in the body, but are useful further reading.
• I'll the importance of specific dates for other editors to judge, I personally don't think it's too cumbersome and having month and year is pretty generic, I feel.
• For PAV-2 crash, the issue is that the flight control system was immature and not ready for low-altitude demonstration flights. The YF-22s never flew after that and the F-22 air vehicle is also markedly different.
• The ATF engine effort was a separate parallel effort that pre-dated the ATF itself by a few years, and during Del/Val it was brought under the control of the ATF SPO. The ATF engine was also being competed which is why there were two YF-22s and YF-23s, one for each engine option. The winner of the engine competition would be announced alongside the ATF winner.
• The ATF SPO had originally planned to select 4 companies as finalists for Dem/Val, but this was judged too expensive and unnecessary, so they reduced it to two.
• I added the seven bidding companies as a note.
• System engineering, which involves your plans for conducting trade studies and requirements reviews, was an area that not many companies focused on at the time, but Lockheed did. It was only after being selected that the companies found out how much the ATF SPO valued system engineering plans in their proposals.
• Scrutiny on Configuration 090P from the design team.

Steve7c8(talk)16:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Ernest J. King

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s):Hawkeye7(talk)

Ernest J. King(edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

It's the 80th anniversary of D-Day, so I thought I would nominate a World War II article. After writing upWilliam D. Leahy,I thought I would tackle the US Navy's second most senior admiral,Ernest J. King,a renowned submariner and aviator who commanded the US Fleet during World War II.Hawkeye7(discuss)

Matarisvan

HiHawkeye7,saving a spot, will post comments soon.

• Remove the double link to the Atlantic Fleet in the lead?

  YRemoved.Hawkeye7(discuss)20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Since we have so much material in the body, consider expanding the lead to 4 paragraphs?

  Any suggestions as to what other things could be mentioned?Hawkeye7(discuss)20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  PerMOS:LEADLENGTH,articles with more than 3,500 words need 3 to 4 paragraph long leads. As such, I will rescind my ask for a 4 para lead.Matarisvan(talk)06:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• "served in the cruiser": "on" instead of "in" would be better?

  YYes. Changed as suggested.Hawkeye7(discuss)20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• "flagship or Rear Admiral": "of"?

  YCorrected.Hawkeye7(discuss)20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Remove the second link to cruiser in the body?

  YUnlinked.Hawkeye7(discuss)20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Remove the second link to destroyer below the Mayo staff pic?

  YUnlinked.Hawkeye7(discuss)20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Do we know what exactly King disliked about Wilson?

  YDifferent personalities. Added this.Hawkeye7(discuss)20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Rework the Swanson part of the sentence to avoid SEAOFBLUE? Something like "Claude A. Swanson, the new Secretary of the Navy" instead?

  YChanged as suggested.Hawkeye7(discuss)20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• "as indeed did occur": sounds a little off, "as indeed occured" may be better?

  YYes. Changed as suggested.Hawkeye7(discuss)20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Link to G7e torpedo?

  Already linked.Hawkeye7(discuss)20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• You will have to get rid of the disputed neutrality tag on the War in the Atlantic section.

  I hope it can be removed.Hawkeye7(discuss)20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• We say he got his first Navy DSC for the salvage of S-51 in the lead and body. But we do not mention what the other two DSCs were for in either the lead or body, only in the Citations section do we have those details.

  YMentioned in connection with salvage of theS-4.Hawkeye7(discuss)20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• What I have noticed is that Dates of Rank and Awards sections are ok at A class level but not at FA level. Especially since you already mention, in chronological order, his promotions in the lead sections.Zawedmight be best able to resolve this.

  I have other articles that went through FAC with Dates of Rank sections.Hawkeye7(discuss)20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• I was quite surprised to see you had used plain <ref> tags instead of sfns. I hope you will change to the latter before nominating for FAC?

  I would greatly prefer it.MOS:STYLERET:If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, seek consensus by discussing this at the article's talk pageHawkeye7(discuss)20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  I could not understand this. Will you be changing to the sfns or not?Matarisvan(talk)09:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I cannot change it without consensus to do so. That would be a blockable offence.Hawkeye7(discuss)09:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone would oppose that, you should open a new section for this on the talk page.Matarisvan(talk)07:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Location of publication is needed for Barlow 1998, Buell 1998, Heinrichs 1998, Stoler 2003

  YAdded.Hawkeye7(discuss)20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• You could consider using the ISBN converter for converting ISBN numbers from 10 digits to 13 digits.

  WP:ISBN:if an older work only lists an ISBN-10, use that in citations instead of calculating an ISBN-13 for it

• Remove the double link to John B. Hattendorf in Hattendorf 2023?

  I think this is okay.Hawkeye7(discuss)20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think so, perhaps we should get a second opinion?Matarisvan(talk)09:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Year of publication needed for Hone & Utz.

  YAdded.Hawkeye7(discuss)20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Link to, as done for other journals?

  YLinked.Hawkeye7(discuss)20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Consider adding the category Recipients of the Order of Naval Merit (Brazil)?

  YAdded.Hawkeye7(discuss)20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

That's all from me, cheersMatarisvan(talk)04:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Now that the change to sfn tags is done, reading through the references is easier. Some comments on source formatting:

• • Ref #30: Add Home of Heroes as the website?

    YAdded.Hawkeye7(discuss)09:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Add an archive link for ref #31? I can't access it, don't know if this holds for others as well. Also, consider running the Internet Archive bot through the page once.

    YAdded archive link. It was working a few weeks ago.Hawkeye7(discuss)09:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Source #68: Add Warfare History Network as the website?

    YAdded.Hawkeye7(discuss)09:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Source #89: Can the 3 weird letters after Order 8984 be removed? They seem to be transcription errors.

    YNo, it is a unicode/Latin-1251 conversion artefact. The moral is to never use ndashes and mdashes.Hawkeye7(discuss)09:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Link to The Baltimore Sun, as done for other newspapers?

    Ylinked.Hawkeye7(discuss)09:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Source #172: Clarify that the journal is the Proceedings of the Naval Institute?

    YAdded link.Hawkeye7(discuss)09:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Why did King receive the Philippine Camapign Medal? Our texts do not mention his being involved in the Philippine-American Wars of the 1910s. We do mention his involvement in the Philippine Campaign in WWII. I think this is is a mixup?

    The Far East tour in the the cruiserUSSCincinnati.I will add a bit.Hawkeye7(discuss)09:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Add King's name to the Notable recipients section on theMexican Service Medalpage?

    YAdded King and Leahy.Hawkeye7(discuss)09:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

That's all from me, cheersMatarisvan(talk)07:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy tosupportfor promotion to A class on the general text, image and source reviews below.Matarisvan(talk)06:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Naval Aviator Badge.jpg: Can be replaced with File:Naval Aviator Badge.png, since the Commons page recommends that. Also PD-US is not appropriate here, PD-USGov-Military award is better.

  Replaced with the PNG.Hawkeye7(discuss)22:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• For the foreign awards images, have the respective governments released copyright over the badges? Are there tags like PD-USGov-Military award for all these countries? If not, you will have to remove them, I had similar issues at one of my FACs.

  I would think that ribbons fall below thethreshold of originalityin the United States. That is a matter for Commons. If they delete them, then they will disappear from here.Hawkeye7(discuss)22:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I think this issue will most certainly pop up at FAC. Anyways, I'm not qualified enough on image reviews so I willpassthis review, any concerns on the foreign awards can be dealt with at FAC.Matarisvan(talk)06:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• None of the images have alt texts. If it is ok with you then I would like to add the alts myself, though I don't think I could so for the images of the ranks and the awards as that would be too tiring.

  Sure. Go for it.Hawkeye7(discuss)22:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

All other images have appropriate tags.Matarisvan(talk)07:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Source review

• Archive URLs needed for:

Refs #24, #46, #66, #71-73, #92, #95, #100, #103, #121, #146, #171, #174-175, #180, #183-186, #188-192; Cline 1951, Hattendorf 2023, King 1909, King 1932, Sternhell & Thorndike 1946, Reimers 2018, Morton 1985, Kohnen 2018.

• For Miller, Jappert & Jackson 2023, could we add thislinkif it is the correct one along with the archive URL?
• Spot checks:

1. 24, #34, #36, #72, #73, #92, #121, #143, #157, #184: all ok.Matarisvan(talk)07:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

   Hi, just saw that you have implemented the changes suggested above. The source review is apassthen. CheersMatarisvan(talk)08:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

wtfiv

I finally have a chance to get to this...

General question...I didn't see a template for Class A review on the article's talk page. Did I miss it?

We don't normally transclude it. There is a link in the project box.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Early life and education

• No comments.

Surface ships

• The first sentence provides an interesting fact, but may mislead the reader. It starts with "Graduates who had been selected for the Marines", since King is the topic of this article and Marines are the topic of this sentence, it implies King is in the Marines. Can this be reworded, or even the reference to Marine's removed. As the point is that before being commissioned as an ensign, King had to serve two years. Perhaps King could be mentioned in that first sentence. This would also make the link to the second paragraph, which beginsKing was promotedmore clear and continuous.

  YChanged as suggested.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• King got to know his staff wellThough a reader can take the energy to correct the perception, the pronominal anaphor implies that the staff is King's not Crowninshield. Can this be reworded?

  YRe-worded.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Consider rewordingBouts of heavy drinkingmaking King the subject to more explicitly signal the change of topic for the reader. For six sentences the topic has been theCincinnati.It is now returning to King, but without warning, only when the 'him' arrives (which references to a subject seven sentences previously) does it signal the reader that theCincinnatiis not the topic. (It may require "King" in the following sentence to become He.)

  YSplit paragraph.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• The last sentence of the third paragraph seems off topic. The paragraph defines King's family and describes Mattie. The last line suddenly addresses King's temper. It sort of follows through an associative logic, as the paragraph is talking about family and the quote is from his daughter. Is there another way to integrate this into the article more appropriately? (If not, it's worth keeping. I think the point is too important to remove.)

  YMoved it down below.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Consider reworking paragraph 5.
  • The paragraph opens with an explanation of the lieutenant promotion process, the second sentence reads as a continuation of this until the word "his" appears at the end of the second sentence. Could King (or "he" ) be introduced earlier, ideally in the first sentence?

  YRe-worked.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Also consider deletingas an ensignfrom the first sentence as it is used already.

  YRe-worked.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  • The information about the fate of those who failed the examination is interesting, but is it relevant since King will pass? I'd suggest deleting. The following sentence makes it clear that the promotion requires training and physical examinations.

  YRelevant. Today it is very unusual for officers to skip the rank of lieutenant (junior grade); the article explains why King did so.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraphs 8 and 9, and perhaps The first paragraph ofsubmarines
  • Wouldn't the three sentences in Paragraph 9 on the signature breast-pocket, which is related to the Royal Navy, be appropriate as part of the paragraph 8, which has King's relation to the Royal Navy as one of its topics?

    YMoved as suggested.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Moving the breast-pocket material out of the paragraph would make King's becoming the head of the Naval Postgraduate School the lead topic of paragraph 9, which would be more relevant, career-wise.
  • Though a knowledgeable reader might be able to infer that the Naval Postgraduate School was in Annapolis at the time due to the sentence about him buying a house. I think it is important to make it explicit, as well as making it explicit that it was still directly under the Naval Academy. This will help readers make sense of his request to return to sea in the first paragraph ofSubmarines.

    YMoved as suggested.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  • I'd suggest moving the first paragraph ofSubmarinesinto this section and merging it into King's becoming head of the Post Graduate institute. It would make the Annapolis episode (becoming head of NPS, getting a house, learning about a new superintendent) one continuous narrative. The sections about the USS Bridge could be included as these preceed King's relationship to submarines, which is the topic of the next section.

    YMoved as suggested.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Submarines

• Paragraph 1
  • (Repeat suggestion): Consider merging paragraph 1 with a modified paragraph 9 in the proceeding section.

    • YMoved as suggested.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Consider deletingtherefore.Would it be possible to rework this a bitLeahy told him that nothing was available. King eventually accepted...It sounds like Leahy told King "no", but then King got a ship anyway. (I think I can infer what happened, but it is a bit confusing for a casual reader.)

    YYes. Made more explicit.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Consider deletingcareerist.Aren't ambitious officers already careerist? It also indirectly implies that King was careerist. I'm sure to some extent he was, but the character being constructed is far more ambitious than careerist as he has a reputation for a temper and being critical.

    YDeleted.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraph 2
  • Consider beginning this section with paragraph 2, which is about submarines. If it begins the sectionAfter a yearmay need to be more specific. Also, consider removingagainas "another command" already implies the repitition.

    • YMoved as suggested.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  • The second sentence beginsOnce again,that's fine but points to the need to rework the relationship between Leahy's comments and King accepting command of the USS Bridge. If he was told again that nothing was available, he shouldn't have been able to get a command on the USS Bridge, even if it seemed a second-rate command. Perhaps the problem is the word "nothing"? Does "nothing" mean a surface warship? If the "nothing" in paragraph 1 can be clarified, it might help clear up the apparent contradiction.

    YMade it clear that we are talking about a destroyer division or flotilla.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Consider merging the two sentences about Leahy and submarines into one. Something like: "Leahy let King know that if he was interested in submarines, Leahy could offer him command of a submarine division."

    YMerged as suggested.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Could you clarify "Submarine Base" in the paragraph? The paragraph has mentioned the Submarine School in New London, but not the base. I'm assuming you mean the school and the base, but a casual reader may be confused to the reference to a base that had not been mentioned before.

    YClarified.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Aviation

• Paragraph 2
  • I'm unsure of the significance of this sentenceHe was the only captain...At first, it sounds like he's the trainee with the highest rank, but then mention of Turner makes it sounds like he's got junior rank. But maybe it's just that he was the only person with the unique rank of captain. Could this be rewritten to clarify the significance of it?

    YClarified that a captain is a very senior officer, and it was very rare (and unheard of today) to see one in flight school; most are ensigns or lieutenants.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. Yes, normally, it would be young officers, but the situation described was unusual, so it was easy to assume that lots of more senior officers wanted to earn their wings at the time to enhance their chances at promotion.Wtfiv(talk)20:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraph 3
  • Wouldn't King's annual flight average be better as the first sentence in the pagraph? The solo flying is interesting, but seems secondary.

    YMoved to the first sentence. The real point here is that King really was an aviator.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  • (Observation): I'm not sure what can be done about it but the current first sentence hasflew solo...flying..solo flying...solo flights..It feels like a bit of repitition, though it has the advantage of reducing ambiguity.

    YRemoved one instance.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Quote
  • (Comment only) Though I'm not generally a fan of long quotes, this one is an exception. It is particularly apt for defining King's character, attitude and outlook.
• Paragraph 6
  • Consider breaking up the sentence startingFollowing the death.There's three dependent clauses, three independent clauses with a lot of names and titles that put a lot of cognitive load on the reader.

    YSplit sentence.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraph 7
  • Leahy has already been introduced, so the full name is not needed, though his new rank and role may still need to be defined.

    YChanged as suggested.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraph 8
  • The sentenceKing was summoned...initially feels like a continuation of the previous paragraph (the travails of Standley). It might be worthwhile, to lead with the date of the summons to help create a sense of break between paragraphs. (It's still a bit instrusive because it disrupts Standley issue that cuts across para. 7 and 9, and this seems like an interrupt, though I suspect that it is in the right place in terms of temporal narrative.)

    YMoved the paragraph.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraph 9
  • The last sentence is a bit unclear to me. To a casual reader, it sounds like he was promoted to Battle Force commander because he survived a plane crash.

    YTweaked the wording. Anybody who wasn't in a crash wasn't flying enough.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Given the topic of the paragraph shouldn't the last sentence focus on the command? Something like "He became Commander... and was promoted to vice admiral...at the time..." as his desire for the Battle Force command is the focus of the paragraph "

    YClarified that what happened was Leahy succeeding Standley.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraph 10
  • Consider breaking the second sentence into two.

• YSplit.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

More to come... Wtfiv(talk)19:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

World War II, General Board

• Paragraph 1.

• I like elephant's graveyard, its an idiom that's easy to get, but when I looked it, the link is unsourced. Digging through multiple slang dictionaries, I found the navy meaning sourced to a 1971 book called the Arnheiter Affair by Neil Sheehan,p.15.All the dictionaries tend to agree that it specifically relates to the Boston Naval District Headquarters (First Naval District Headquarters.) during the Vietnam era. This'68 Time articleseems to back this up. Unless another source pops up in the "elephant's graveyard" article for a broader use as navy slang, it might be best to delete this.

  That is because the Naval General Board was abolished in 1951. It is fine.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• The paragraph is only two sentences long, would it make sense to merge it with paragraph 2, perhaps combining paragraph 1 and 2?

  YMerged.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good...though the Elephant's Graveyard article could use a citation showing that the term had been in general use before the Vietnam War...but that's not relevant to this article and this review.Wtfiv(talk)21:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraph 3

• posed a greater threat..., a fear that....Could this be reworded, as a threat is not necessarily a fear. Here's a suggestion: "bigger bombs, posing a greater threat to the fleet, which would soon be confirmed in combat."

• • YChanged as suggested.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Commander in Chief, Atlantic Fleet

• Paragraph 1
  • On the surface, this seems to go against the previous section, which implies that King saved from oblivion and became CINCUS due to a recommendation by his outside relationship with Edison, who influenced Roosevelt. This paragraph states that he was saved by Stark who saw his talents. There's probably something to both accounts, but can it be resolved to make the two work together?

    YClarified.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraph 2
  • The section starting at the sentence on page 2 seems unclear It goes from war plan in safe with war in Mexico, to war footing, to already at war with Germany seems to be telescoping something. At first read, it is sounds like he found a plan for war with Mexico, put the fleet on a war footing, then claimed it was for a war with Germany. (i.e., covering his tracks for a misorder.) My guess is something more like he found the fleet unprepared, which was demonstrated by his finding obsolete plans for a war with Mexico, decided to take swift action to get the fleet organized for the war with Germany, or rather the somewhat cool undeclared war. I'm guessing that the directive was part of this initiative? Could this paragraph be reworked so casual readers don't have to puzzle it out?
• Paragraph 3
  • for the duration...I'm not sure what this means. The duration of his command? The duration of his professional career? The duration of the war? The latter would have to be made explicit, as the US wasn't at war yet.

    YThis is a World War II-era idiom. Roosevelt proclaimed an Unlimited National Emergency in May 1941.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  • The second half of this paragraph has a different topic than the first half. Reader's will assume thatRather than...begins a topic continuing the point about being CINCLANT or giving up drinking. The second half seems like it should be its own paragraph, and would be better starting with the new topic (e.g., "On the eve of the..., Germany withdrew its submarines rather than risk..." ) This new paragraph can then be merged with paragraph 4, which continues the discussion of Roosevelt's further steps. The first half of Paragraph 3 could be merged into the end of paragraph 2, as its only a one month difference between January and February.

    YMoved the text about.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  A reader might reasonably guess that it the duration of the war. But a reader who was born well after WWII and with no knowledge of WWII idioms or the military would have to left guessing and uncertain of their guess. I still think it would be best to be definite about duration as the idiom is now 80 years old.Wtfiv(talk)21:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hawkeye7I think I put the preceding comment in the wrong place. It was meant to address your point about "for the duration" being a World War II-era idiom The point being that although I understand that for the duration meant for the duration of the war, I'm thinking only vets, folk like me who are reasonably familiar with the American military experience in WWII, and MILHIST grognards can be certain of what "for the duration" means. I'm not sure readers would understand it in the context of the Unlimited National Emergency act, given that official War had not yet broken out for the US. For folk who were born in 1980 and later, knowing this term would be analogous to someone born in 1935 knowing something about the slang used in the Spanish-American war.

  I know this is a minor quibble, and I'll desist and respect your point if you feel it is fine as is. But I think my concern also helps to clarify one of the goals of my review style, which is trying to pose concerns from the view of somebody who knows very little of the topic. (Which is sometimes hard to do because of my own implicit background knowledge... I realize when I stop to puzzle something out based on what I know, that that's a red flag that I should share the concern.)Wtfiv(talk)17:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  YChanged to "duration of the war".Hawkeye7(discuss)20:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraph 4
  • Could this be recrafted? It may be just me, but I misread it: At first, the mention of the Texas seemed like a non-sequitor. It was as if King had a job to do for Roosevelt (who is making a trip but its unclear how), went to Hyde park, while making preparations there that were suppose to be for Roosevelt, found there that USS Texas wasn't appropriate for his flagship, and got himself a new flagship. If I understand it now, I think intended sense is that King had to make arrangements for Roosevelt's trip, which would be by ship, and while in Hyde Park he determined (as opposed to found) that USS Texas would not appropriate for transporting Roosevelt, so he got a new flagship for Roosevelt to travel in.

    It was King who wanted the newer ship with the better communications. Sources don't say, but I suspect that Roosevelt might have preferred the battleship, as Churchill was coming inHMSDuke of York.Clarified. The arrangements for transporting Roosevelt were always tricky, due to his disability.Hawkeye7(discuss)20:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraph 5
  • consider changing "had issued" to "issued".

    YChanged as suggested.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  • At first reading, the sentence about the sinking of USS Reuben James seems unrelated to the proceeding sentences. Consider tying the sinking of USS Ruben James to the end of the Neutrality acts. I'd suggest removing "until November" and adding something like "When the USS Reuben James became the first...to be sunk..., Congress repealed the acts on 17 November."

    YRe-arranged text.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Wtfiv(talk)07:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Commander in Chief, U. S. Fleet

• Paragraph 1
  • I'm not sure this needs to be changed, but as obvious as it might seem to someone who studies these things, would a casual reader who might just be looking at CINCUS as just another large anachronym get the pun on CINCUS (sink us)? Would it be worth spelling this out?

    YAdded.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Consider moving the "Legend has it..." a bit earlier in the paragraph. It is relate to King's assignment (Or is it King's response to the assignment of himself, Ingersoll and Nimitz...placement of the "Legend" quip, will sort that out. Ending with the CINCUS renaming would then work a bit more smoothly.

    YMoved about.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraph 3
  • This paragraph sets up King's staff, but I found myself having a bit of time tracking it. I'd like to suggest a bit of amplification and clarification.
    • Horne is mentioned as part of King's staff, but the previous paragraph left Horne with Stark. How'd Horne get into King's staff?

      Because King became CNO.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

    • Once Horne's place in the staff is established, I'd suggest putting the sentence "Edwards, Cooke, and Horne right after the addition of the last of this list: the sentence ending"...succeeded by Rear Admiral Charles M. Cooke. "That would sum up the trio defined in the previous sentences (and Edwards in the previous paragraph). The sentence about Low could come afterwards as he's not part of the trio, then maybe a sentence about junior officers filling the other roles and coming in and out.

      YMoved sentence.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Sentences two and four both begin with "He". The anaphoric reference to both would go to Willson. Readers can sort them out, but to reduce the cognitive load and make Edward's more salient as you set up the trio summary, I'd suggest replacing the second "He was succeeded by Edwards" with the dependent clause "and replaced with Edwards". This wording has the advantage of more directly reflecting King's intention, if it was, rather than sounding like he took Edwards by default of seniority.

    YChanged as suggested.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Consider expanding "duration" to "duration of the war".

    YChanged as suggested.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Consider "When Turner was assigned to..." vs. "went".

    I think "went" is fine. He could not be assigned to it; it was not a ship.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Consider "which King renamed USS Dauntless", it was King it renamed it right? (If it was renamed by someone else, its fine as it is.) And such an act reflects his character. the following sentence could then replace "King" with "he", as the anaphor works.

    YHad to check this, but yes, it was King. He asked his staff for suggestions and chose "Dauntless".Hawkeye7(discuss)04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraph 4
  • Consider rewording the section about Executive Order 9096. If Roosevelt combined them on 12 March 1942; but King assumed both on 26 March. What happened between March 13 and 25? Stark was CNO, but couldn't take over COMINCH without pushing out King. My own assumption is the March 12 was signed but not the date it was effective. But the gap leads an attentive reader to possibilities that are red herrings for the narrative: Was Stark setting up the situation for King? Did Stark want the position, but lost a power play to King, which forced Stark's demotion? The solution for this that comes to my mind is to deleted mention of 12 March. Then the transition seems more seamless and obviates the need to explain the narrative gap between March 13 to 25.

    YChanged as suggested.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Consider removing the clause "the only overlap..." It is implied in the remainder of the sentence.

    YDeleted.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraph 5
  • Up to this point, King has not been mentioned as part of the American chiefs of staff, though a reader slightly knowledgeable in American command structure may be able to figure it out. To help the reader, I'd suggest something like "When the American chiefs of staff, including King,..." this would help clarify and would also foreground King earlier in the paragraph as the topic.

    YChanged as suggested..Hawkeye7(discuss)04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraph 6
  • This paragraph was a bit unclear at first because we already told that King succeeded Stark in paragraph 5. But then Stark is back in paragraph 6 as part of the Joint Chief's of staff. (A less-than-through reader might assume that Stark served on the chief of staffs in his role as COMNAVEUR) I think this can be solved by moving paragraph 5 before paragraph 4. That would fit better in the narrative timeline and reduce the issue of Stark reappearing.

    YChanged as suggested..Hawkeye7(discuss)04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Once the narrative ambiguity is resolved, I'd suggest rewording the first sentence to "When Stark became...., the JJS was reduced to three members. [optionally listing them for readers again-King, Leahy, and Marshall- as there would be an intervening paragraph on the separate topic of COMINCH/CNO and Stark.]

    YChanged as suggested..Hawkeye7(discuss)04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  • The second sentence is a bit unclear. Why is Turner and Ingersoll relevant? They are not part of the JCS. If it is kept, it would need clarification. It sounds like a bigger and more complex political issue that spreads through the lower chains of command and beyond this article. My own feeling is the sentence side tracks the paragraph's focus on King. My suggestion is to deleting it. That would keep King consistently in the middle of the narrative.

    YDeleted mention of Ingersoll and Turner. I just wanted to make clear that King's was the Navy's position.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Consider deleting "still" from "still pressed", as this is the first mention of the idea of liason and spokesperson.

    YChanged as suggested..Hawkeye7(discuss)04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  • I also suggest deleting "on principle". Given that King shaves with a blowtorch, more than principle may have been involved in his debate with Marshall. The point would still be made.

    YChanged as suggested..Hawkeye7(discuss)04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Consider deleting "only" from "only 8", 8 isn't much different than 9. I think readers will see the diminishment in the list of 32, 8, 9, 1.

    I think it reads better with it there.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

    Sounds good.Wtfiv(talk)21:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraph 7
  • Though interesting, I'm not sure how the Hart Episode relates to what happens to King in the paragraph. If it is meant to be an example of Roosevelt's micromanagement, I'd suggest starting the sentence off with "For example,"

    YChanged as suggested.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Similarly, I'm not sure where the Marshall clause fits in unless it is meant to be a contrast on how King was treated. If so, something like "Roosevelt gave Marshall broad authority, including reorganizing the War Department, but King's authority..." That'd also help make the Roosevelt-King relationship being described more explicit.

    YChanged as suggested. A reader familiar with Marshall's sweeping changes will find this interesting.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Consider rewording the sentences beginning "Acting on a suggestion..." to something like this "King, acting on a suggestion..., ordered...on May 28. He was opposed by... Most importantly, he was opposed..." This would help make King the agent and focus of the reaction, focusing on the constraints on King and making and less about the Knox's and the bureau chiefs' actual attitudes toward the restructure.

    YChanged as suggested.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Consider rewording "allow" to "did allow" If you are agreeable to this "did" serves to emphasize that Roosevelt seemed to make a concession giving latitude now and then, but the following clause tamps down that it was more illusory.

    YChanged as suggested.Hawkeye7(discuss)04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Wtfiv(talk)02:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraph 8
  • Consider deletingThe navy had always thought in terms of ships(I can see the contrast being set up with respect to personnel, but isn't it assumed that Navy's think in terms of ships?) and maybe consider "By mid-144, the Navy had more ships on order than personnel...".

    I prefer it the way it is.Hawkeye7(discuss)08:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Consider adding "for ship reductions" to "target".

    YChanged as suggested.Hawkeye7(discuss)08:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraph 9
  • I feel like Chapter 9 could be stronger if it was reworked, and perhaps elements combined with Chapter 8, or rework both 8 and 9. I don't have specific suggestions, but I'll try to clarify what I'm seeing. It seems different parts are doing different work.
    • Sentence 3 seems like a restatement or clarification of the existence of the looming personnel shortage stated at the beginning of para 8, but giving more detail and framing it within a prediction. It seems the relevant sections of paras 8 and 9 could be merged. Also, consider deleting the clause listing the number of Essex-class carriers and if the number of carriers is to be given, perhaps give it in the section that already mentions the Essex-class carriers.
    • Sentences 1 and 2 seem like a wrap up the thought at the end of Paragraph 8: King is trying to work with the constraints of predicted personnel shortage by attempting ship cuts, but he is resisted, even though he is later shown to be right.
    • The last three sentences seem to be a different, but closely related topic: Discussing how King tried to address the shortage by increasing available Naval personnel.

      • YMoved things around a bit.Hawkeye7(discuss)08:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

War in the Atlantic

• Paragraphs 1-4
• This section is a bit more difficult for me and I'm not sure how it can be addressed, or whether it should.

  I assume these paragraphs are intended to give background, but I felt they seemed to move away from the article's focus. The detail is certainly interesting. But King sinks from view after his first mention in paragraph 1 for three and a half paragraphs. For the time being, he is replaced by a new protagonist, Adolphus Andrews. King doesn't return until paragraph 5 regarding discussion about his 1940 recommendation for cutters.

  From my perspective, the article at this point has been focusing King and has been working at a narrative and strategic/grand strategic level, but it changes in these paragraphs. As mentioned, this wealth of finer-grain detail about the war couched in terms of Andrew's challenges, is interesting, but couldn't much of this go into the Battle of the Atlantic or Happy Times article? Would it be possible to outline the situation in broad strokes, and stay focused on King's challenges during this time?Wtfiv(talk)05:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  YAgreed. I have cut this section back to focus on King.Hawkeye7(discuss)08:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks...I think the one paragraph background fills readers in enough to now know what challenges King has to face.

• Paragraph 3
  • The first sentence may need expanding, it seems to follow from the preceding paragraph but what was the purpose of copying the cutters? Were they to be as submarine chasers as per the following sentence or escorts. Inferring from the end of the paragraph, it seems they are intended as escorts. (The article on the class states they functioned more as chasers.) ((It sounds like the issue in this paragraph may be designing nimble escorts for the convoy, of which King's proposal to use Treasury-class ships is but one option.)

    Added "as anti-submarine escorts". The point is that the 327-footTreasury-class coast guard cutter was considerably larger than a 110-foot sub chaser. Clarified this.Hawkeye7(discuss)07:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hawkeye7I think the addition of the first sentence, which now mentions anti-submarine escorts, removes the need for "anti-submarine escorts in the second sentence (e.g., Treasury class). I feel like the context is now clear. Thanks!Wtfiv(talk)07:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• • The end of the paragraph mentions destroyer escorts were finally put into production, but its not clear that they are the Treasury-class ones that King wanted, assuming it was destroyer escorts he was advocating for. It sounds like seven were built. If the issue is cutters vs. escorts, it might need a bit of clarification.

• • The cut-down warship (cut down from what?) sounds like it was functioning in both roles. How does it relate to the Treasury-class ships mentioned in the first paragraph.

    The destroyer escort was a cut-down version of a destroyer. Clarified this. They were 290 to 306 feet long. So very similar to the cutter, but based on the BritishHunt-class destroyer escort.Hawkeye7(discuss)07:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraph 4: No comments on the paragraph itself, but:
  • I feel paragraph 4's context would be more clear if Paragraph 3 was more explicit. It's becoming clear that King is looking for solutions to the Paukenschlag. Paragraph 3 is about seeking a solution through finding the adequate ship to produce, Chapter 4 is about seeking a solution through convoying. I started getting a sense of this with the opening of paragraph 4. Though it follows logically, I think making this more clear through reworking paragraph 3 may make the context of both paragraphs clear.
• Paragraph 5: No comments
• Paragraph 6
  • Long-range maritime patrolling is another solution that was explored and use. Could a sentence at the beginning setting up this context be added? Knowledgable readers may know this, but I think readers need to know that long-range air patrols were part of the solution. It feels like it should follow after Paragraphs 4 convoy system, outlining King's role in the troika of solutions: better ships, better convoys, and long-range planes. Then it would follow more smoothly. But in terms of narrative timeline, it makes sense where it is.

  YAdded a bridging sentence.Hawkeye7(discuss)07:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks...this whole section reads much more smoothly, in my opinion.Wtfiv(talk)07:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraph 7: No comments

War in Europe

• Paragraph 1: No comments
• Paragraph 2: No comments
• Paragraph 3
  • This expresses an important point, but its not given a context that makes it clear it fits here. Would this go better when discussing the Pacific War? (Unless you want to make the point that King that too many resources were going to Europe. If that's the case, I think it be clearer if it was stated more strongly.
    • (Later note): I just started looking at theWar in the Pacificsection. It looks like para 4 inWar in the Pacificalso addresses the priority problem...From my perspective, a paragraph on how King handled that issue may be worthwhile, probably in the appropriate place of theWar in the Pacificsection as its my understanding that his emphasis on this point is responsible for the United States being able to sustain both fronts, and the two prongs of the Pacific war as successfully as it did.Wtfiv(talk)02:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Paragraph 4: no comments on the paragraph itself, but:
  • This seems to follow directly from Paragraph 2, which suggests that Paragraph 2 might be stronger in a different location. There is mention of King's diverting landing ships to the Pacific War, but this doesn't need paragraph 2 to be understood. (Though if you wanted to amplify on King's dissatisfaction with Pacific War resources here, and how his belief influenced his reallocation of resources, but I feel this would have to be tackled directly in Para 2. As mentioned, I think it may be easiest to move Paragraph 2 the Pacific War section, assuming there is a section there discussing how he worked to divert resources to it.)
• Paragraph 5: No comments

Wtfiv(talk)23:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

With the recent changes, this section comes together for me as a self-contained whole.Wtfiv(talk)19:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

War in the Pacific

• Paragraph 1: No comments
• Paragraph 2: No comments on the paragraph itself, but:
  • The second sentence points back to to King's trying to get resources for the Pacific war. Can the earlier material on the issue of getting resources for the Pacific War and its challenge be combined with this? Maybe it needs a stand alone paragraph. (But then, maybe not.)
• Paragraph 3: No comments on the paragraph itself, but:
  • There's no coverage of the Marianas campaign. A paragraph on this is important because this is where King strikes out to clearly begin his Central Pacific Drive (up to that point, the Marshall islands campaign could be seen as supporting the Southwest Pacific campaign.) The impact of this campaign (e.g., putting Japan in bombing range) is something done through King's initiative (with the help of Arnold, who it looks like he enlisted.)
  • Similarly, if there is more to wrap up about King's guidance of the war in 1944-1945, that may need a short paragraph. (At least up to the cancellation of Operation Causeway and its fallout. I'm unsure of Iwo Jima and Okinawa need mention.) Anyway, I think closure would require continuing the narrative until the decisions were no longer King's,. (This wasn't as needed in theWar in Europesection, as after Overlord, the land war is the focus and King is clearly background.)

    I will add a couple more paragraphs on these campaigns on the weekend. (Why is there no article on Operation Longtom?)Hawkeye7(discuss)09:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Sounds good! I think these paragraphs you are putting together are pretty important. I'll be looking forward to it.

  No article on Operation Longtom? It sounds like you have another article in the making! (It seems like a challenge that is up your alley!) It'd be a good one that could pique readers' imagination: what things would've been like today if Causeway and Longtom had been executed? What would China's developmental trajectory have been? It'd be a very different, perhaps unrecognizable world!

  One comment on the end of this section as it stands: Though it took a bit of dancing, I think King's daughter's quote found an ideal home. I felt the juxtaposition of the two quotes at the end of a section accomplished a rare trifecta in editing: It clearly states its point (King's passionate commitment to the Pacific War), it illustrates its protaganist's character (a passionate temper), and most rare in Wikipedia, its done with humor. (A humor done well enough that when I first saw it, I laughed despite already having seen both quotes separately before.)Wtfiv(talk)15:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have added a couple of paragraphs about this.Hawkeye7(discuss)06:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Looks good!Wtfiv(talk)22:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraph 4

• • The paragraph starts a new topic that is different than the unfolding narrative of the Pacific War campaigns in the previous three paragraphs. To make the transition clear, consider opening the paragraph on torpedoes with a topic sentence on the problem. Something like "King also worked to improve American torpedoes"
• Paragraphs 5–8 feel like a different topic than King's managing the strategic aspects of the Pacific War and dealing with torpedo problems. As the article mentions, its more political and in and way, more personal to King. It's less about the Pacific War and more about King's view of the world. Do you think a subheading under Pacific War or perhaps its own section would make the transition more clear? Beyond that, I think the paragraphs form a coherent whole amongst themselves.

• YSplit it off into a separate section.Hawkeye7(discuss)09:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  In my opinion, separating this really helps.Wtfiv(talk)15:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Retirement and death

• Paragraph 1: No comments
• Paragraph 2: "writing to Truman via Forrestal"On the surface, it sounds like King was asking Forrestal to forward a note to Truman for him, but why would Forrestal who was opposed to the idea? I think I can puzzle this out: King wrote an open letter to Forrestal but copied Truman? Can this be rewritten so it would be clear to a reader?

  The source says: "King forced Forrestal's hand by writing to Truman via Forrestal, asking the secretary within the letter to hand it to the president... Forrestal delivered the letter, and Truman agreed to the appointment" [of Nimitz instead of Edwards]. Buell quotes the letter, which ended with "I am asking the Secretary of the navy to hand you this letter." He writes: "Forrestal received the letter grudgingly. He had no choice other than to forward it to Truman."Hawkeye7(discuss)08:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  If that's what the source says then my impression the first read is right despite it being counterintuitive! Thanks.Wtfiv(talk)15:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraphs 3–4: No comments

I think that's all for now.Wtfiv(talk)03:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Support.From my perspective it has a good balance that non-experts can appreciate, but includes lots of detail to keep the more knowledgeable readers engaged. Thank you for your time and patience with my review.Wtfiv(talk)23:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Miyoshi Nagayoshi

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s):Ahendra(talk)

Miyoshi Nagayoshi(edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

One of the most underrated Japanese politician and warlord duringSengoku period.There are many modern historians reassessments about him now to points out his importance for his role during the end ofMuromachi periodAhendra(talk)17:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

HiAhendra,my comments. Please excuse my lack of usage of diacritics:

• Translate Shuri-dayu and Chikuzen no Kami?
• Mention the date of Nagayoshi's birth in the body as done in the infobox?
• Was he the governor of the Iga ikki, Iga province or Iga city in Mie prefecture?
• Does Hongan-ji here refer to theHongan-jishrine,Hongan-ji Nagoya BetsuinorHonganji-ha?

I will add more comments soon, this is a large article so it will take time to read through, I hope that is alright. CheersMatarisvan(talk)09:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

hello.

Shūri-dayū, (i believe its mistranslation from someone translation, it should be Shuri-no-daifu) is etymologically senior assistant minister of justice. a position fromArchaic Japan Empire office.Chikuzen no Kami is literally "lord of Chikuzen" its kind like noble titles

gonna do that

Iga Provinceobviously,Iga ikkiwas not officially recognized by the central government.. in this case by Emperor and Shogunate

Hongan-ji during Nagayoshi reign was more like umbrella term for entireJōdo Shinshūfollowers here. as the split between west Hongan-ji (Higashi Hongan-ji) and east Hongan-ji (Nishi Hongan-ji) as the sect were more institutionalized were occured later in Edo period. other than that. i have not much knowledge about them, except of their rebellion activities during Onin war until Sengoku periodAhendra(talk)10:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Boot Monument

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s):Relativity(talk)

Boot Monument(edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

If you travel toSaratoga National Historic Park,you will probably come across this somewhat bizarre monument of a boot. Its honoree's name is never mentioned on it, and it would take some research to figure out that it's actually honoringBenedict Arnold.I am nominating this for A-class because I'd like to take this toFAand so I would need to see what further improvements need to be made to it to get it there. Thank you!‍Relativity ⚡️00:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hawkeye

This is all way outside my area of expertise. I presume that Benedict Arnold was rehabilitated long ago. Article looks more like a GA than an FA. Some comments:

• Can be have a consistent date format? Three different ones are used. (Recommend using dmy and adding a {{use dmy dates}} template.)
  • Done
• "Arnold's betrayal to the British" implies that someone betrayed him.
  • Changed to "Arnold betrayed the Continental Army for the British Army"
• Do we know what Arnold's actual, rank was? (Same for Clinton, Gates and Lincoln)
  • Yes, andDone
• Is there any reason why the town of West Point was worth twenty thousand quid?
  • According to Nathaniel Philbrick'sValiant Ambition,the Hudson River was a large and strategically important river. The fortifications at West Point were on an "S" bend at the river and whoever controlled West Point essentially controlled the Hudson River itself. Since capturing the Hudson River would mean a huge military success to the British if they could capture it, which meant capturing West Point, that meant it was worth a lot of money. Should I add that to the article, or something shorter, such as "for the capture of West Point, a fortification that was important to the control of the Hudson River"?

    The short version would be fine.Hawkeye7(discuss)22:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Done‍Relativity ⚡️03:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• The lead says he "attempted to give crucial information about the fortification of West Point to the British" but the body says "offering Arnold £20,000 for thecaptureof West Point. Arnold met with British Major John André, who Arnold had solicited communication through, and André was later captured on his way back to New York with the plans for West Point being discovered "
  • Good catch, reworded in the lead to "He later attempted to help the British capture the fortification of West Point but was discovered and fled to the British army."
• "solicited communication through" sounds awkward to me.
  • Reworded to "Arnold met with British Major John André so he could pass on information on how to best attack West Point,". Let me know what you think.
• "College boys on a trip stole the toe and spur from the Boot Monument,[21][22] and they were only discovered when an anonymous informer informed the battlefield official that the toe was stolen by" a graduate of a New York State educational institution. "[23] The monument underwent restoration after Adolph S. Ochs, publisher of The New York Times, financed it." Do we have dates for these events?
  • Unfortunately no. All of the newspapers used as citations are from around the same time but there is no actual specified date when this happened.
• "The monument is made of white marble[2][43] and is four feet tall." Source required for the height. And add a conversion for those of us living in the twenty-first century instead of the eighteenth.
  • Added a conversion. And it does have a source already?

    I does now, so good.Hawkeye7(discuss)22:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Hawkeye7(discuss)01:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7:Thanks for the review and your time! I addressed most of your concerns, although I have one question about your fourth point.‍Relativity ⚡️21:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me.Support.Hawkeye7(discuss)22:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

HiRelativity,some comments:

• Provide a link or identifier for "The Shrine of the Memorial Museum"? If you received it via resource request, specify that in a hidden note?

• That source was there before I started extensively editing this article. I tried to find it, but couldn't. Since there's another source there, I've removed it.

• Here is a link for Leopold 1994:[1].Consider adding?

• Added,thanks for finding that. Hopefully, I've done it correctly.

• Link to Lawrence Journal-World, The Lewiston Daily Sun and Boca Raton News as done for the other newspapers? Also I guess Ration is a typo, should be Raton?

• Done,and yes, that was a typo. I fixed that as well.

• Provide a link for Duffus 1930 and MacIvor 1954?

• For the MacIvor one, I found it off of the Wikipedia Library, and can't seem to find a way to add a link to it other than having a link go directly to the Wikipedia Library. Here's the permalink:[2].I added an ISSN though for it. As for Duffus' source, I foundthe link,but there's an error page saying that there are technical difficulties with it showing up. I've added it for now, and I'll see if I can do anything else about that.

• Link to Social Forces, McFarland, The New England Quarterly, University Press of New England, NYU Press, Regnery Publishing, The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, Casemate Publishers? You've already linked to Random House so to be consistent you will have to link everywhere else. Otherwise you could consider removing the links for publishers altogether.

• Doneand added one forWilliam Morrow and Companyas well.

• Add a date for Brumwell? The website provides one.

• Done

• What is your policy on linking to authors? I can understand if you do not wish to in order to avoid SEAOFBLUE. If you do wish to, however, consider linking to Alexis Coe, Gary Alan Fine, Donald W. Linebaugh, Richard M. Ketchum, James Kirby Martin, Dave Richard Palmer, Nathaniel Philbrick, Willard Sterne Randall?

• DoneNot a huge fan of the SEAOFBLUE, but I think that it's better this way.

• To be consistent, you will have to decide to include the locations of publication or not. For most sources you have them, but for some you don't.

• Done

That's all from me, cheersMatarisvan(talk)05:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Matarisvan:Thanks so much for the review. I think that I've addressed all of your concerns above. Cheers‍Relativity ⚡️21:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild:I've addressed both reviews above.‍Relativity ⚡️21:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Relativity,you should consider changing the references from ref tags to sfn tags, because that will be required at FAC. Also you should add the Wikipedia Library link for MacIvor 1954 which you have.Matarisvan(talk)05:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Matarisvan:BothDone‍Relativity ⚡️19:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy tosupportfor promotion to A Class.Matarisvan(talk)01:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Saving a place. Could you ping me once the review above has ended. Thanks.Gog the Mild(talk)16:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild:First off, thank you for taking the time to review this article. Just so you're aware, I am going to be unable to be active on Wikipedia for about two months, give or take a week or two, so if you add any comments starting tomorrow, it is very unlikely that I will be able to address them. My apologies for the inconvenience. Cheers‍Rela[[User talk:The monument is made of white marble[2][43] and is 4 feet (1.2 m) tall.[44]tivity ⚡️]]04:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and I hope that the Scottish Highlands were nice!‍Relativity ⚡️04:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The Highlands were good, thanks. I hit a narrow weather window just right.If you are going to be off-Wiki for more than a couple of weeks it seems - donning my FAC coordinator hat - that this nomination is certain to be archived. It may be best to withdraw this nomination and renominate once you have the time to allocate to it.Gog the Mild(talk)18:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Thinking further, at ACR time is not that important. So I shall comment when I can and you respond when you can.Gog the Mild(talk)12:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I might be able to come here occasionally to respond to any comments.‍Relativity ⚡️20:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• "betrayed the Continental Army for the British Army." I think that needs to be either '... betrayed... to...' or '... deserted... for...'
• "Arnold continued to grow more bitter towards". This has not previously been mentioned, so he can't continue to do it. Perhaps 'Arnold grew ever more bitter...'?

• Doneadded "ever"

• "had contributed to both Battles of Saratoga". Perhaps a link?

• Done

• "Battle of Bemis Heights". Likewise.

• Done

• "even after hostilities between him". Perhaps "hostilities" → 'disagreements'?

• Done

• "and a court martial after being convicted of two minor charges of using his role as military commander of Philadelphia to make a profit." This reads that the court martial took placeafterhis conviction on the minor charges. Is that correct?

• Oops, that's not. Changed to "and a court martial which resulted in him being convicted of two minor charges of using his role as military commander of Philadelphia to make a profit"

• "The toe of the Boot Monument was stolen by college boys on a trip". Is it known when?

• Unfortunately no. All of the sources that were used in that little section date from 1927-1931, but a specific date is never mentioned.

• "The monument underwent restoration". Again, when?

• See above

• "but he did regain his seniority." I doubt if many readers will understand this. Could it be rephrased a little more accessibly?

• Reworded to "but he became more senior than the other officers that had been promoted before him.", hope that's okay.

• "The monument is made of white marble and is 4 feet (1.2 m) tall." I suggest that this be moved to be the first sentence of the first paragraph of this section.

• Done

@Relativity:that's it from me.

Gog the Mild(talk)20:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild:I think I've addressed all your concerns above.‍Relativity ⚡️19:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:The Boot Monument Uncovered (a3ffc30d-9e26-44a7-8d69-87b8b8957f3b).JPG- National Park Service image - PD - okay
• File:Arnold-boot.jpg- inadequately licensed - needsc:Template:PD-US-statue/proposalas well

• I think that I did that correctly...‍Relativity ⚡️01:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• LinkGeorge Edwin Bissellin the body of the article

• Done‍Relativity ⚡️01:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Hawkeye7(discuss)20:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review - pass

HiRelativity,my comments. #17, #24, #26, #40, #41: all ok. Seems like the source review is a pass, now you need just one more support for promotion to A class. Also, I would really appreciate it if you could post your comments at a PR I just opened up, linkedhere.CheersMatarisvan(talk)12:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Matarisvan:Thanks for the source review! I'll definitely check out the PR when I can, although I'm still out and about so it might take a week or so before I can add any comments.‍Relativity ⚡️06:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Pendright

Start soon -Pendright(talk)02:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• Erected in 1887 by John Watts de Peyster, it commemorates Major General Benedict Arnold's service at the Battles of Saratoga in the Continental Army, but does not mention him on the monument because Arnold later betrayed the Continental Army for the British Army.

• Change Erected in to Erectedduring
• Doneand also fixed that in the History section
• Addwhilebetween Saratoga & in
• Done
• Since the monument was sculptured before it was erected, why doesn't Bissell get equal billing with de Peyster? (de Peyster begins the paragraph and Bissell ends the paragraph)
• I put Bissell at the end of the paragraph because a lot of the sources I cited never mentioned him, just the monument and De Peyster. Should I move Bissell to an earlier portion of the paragraph?

• Arnold continued to grow ever more bitter towards the Continental Army when he was passed over for promotion, lost his business, and was court-martialed for abusing his power as military commander of Philadelphia.

andhewas court-martialed...

• Done

Background

• American Major General Benedict Arnold had contributed to both Battles of Saratoga, although the extent of his contributions to the first battle, the Battle of Freeman's Farm, are disputed.[4][5]

Could you briefly share with readers the nature of the dispute(s)?

• Added efn note, hope that's okay.

• Gates did not make much mention of Arnold's contributions in his report of the aftermath of the battle,[10] which contributed to Arnold's bitterness, along with his combat wounds, business troubles, Congress having promoted some rival and younger generals ahead of him, and a court martial after being convicted of two minor charges of using his role as military commander of Philadelphia to make a profit.[11]

• This sentence contains about 65 words -> consider breaking it up
• I split the first part of that sentence from the rest
• Add a hyphen to court martial
• Done

• This, along with the fact that his wife, Peggy Shippen, came from a family of Loyalists, caused Arnold to start making communications with the British army, with Sir Henry Clinton finally offering Arnold £20,000 for the capture of West Point,[12] a fortification that was important to the control of the Hudson River.[13]

• Drop the comma afterThis
• Done
• Replace comma (,) with with asemiclon
• Not doneWhere?
• £20,000 -> what was the equivalent in continental currency?
• I tried to find out, but couldn't unfortunately.

• Arnold fled to the British army, and remained as a general there until the war ended.[14][15]

• Drop the comma after army or addhebetween and remained
• Done
• Arnold fled to the British army, ->where?
• Done

History

• John Watts de Peyster, a former major general for the New York State Militia during the American Civil War,[16] writer of several military histories about the Battle of Saratoga, and a vice president of the SMA,[2] wanted to commemorate Arnold's contribution to the Continental Army's victory over the British[1] and was unsatisfied with the Saratoga Battle Monument, where the niche where a statue of Arnold should have gone would remain empty.[17]

• A 71 word sentence -> consider breaking it up
• Done
• ofthe New York State Militia
• Done
• awriter of...
• Done
• Reaibility of the last clause? If it is essential to the meaning of the sentence then delete the comma before the frstwhere
• DoneDeleted comma

• De Peyster considered Arnold a traitor, but still recognized his contributions at Saratoga.

Drop the comma after traitor or addhebetween but & still

• Donerm comma

• He wanted to "honor some of Arnold's deeds without honoring the man" [1] but thought that simply a slab of granite to commemorate Arnold "would not do." [2]

If the above is meant as "" marks then it will need attribution. If it is meant asemphasisit will look like so.

• DoneIt is intended as quotation marks ( "" ) so I added in-text attribution.

• He commissioned George Edwin Bissell,[2][3] who had designed other statues that Peyster had erected,[1] to sculpt a marker in white marble.[2]

Should it bedePeyster?

• Yes, thank youDone

• The toe of the Boot Monument was stolen by college boys on a trip[21][22] and they were only discovered when an anonymous informer (described as "a graduate of a New York State educational institution" ) told the battlefield official that the toe was stolen.[23]

on a trip-> This term has more than a single meanings - what does it mean here?

• An outing, excursion, or visit. Changed to "visit"

• The monument was originally located at the top of the hill at the Breymann Redoubt site, but was later moved after further research as to where Arnold injured his leg, which was the more southern end of the main redoubt line.[26]

Additbetween but & was

• Done

• The time at which this happened is disputed with some sources saying 1975,[3][27] while others say 1972.

Drop the comma afterwhile

• I presume you meant the comma after 1975, so I dropped the comma there.

• However, the monument was still at the Breymann Redoubt before the time of its move, and is still at the southern end of the redoubt.[1][28][29]

Drop the comma after move or additbetween and & is

• DoneDropped comma

Appearance

• It features a howitzer barrel, with a left-footed horseman's riding boot[4][33][34] and a two-star epaulette for a major general on top of the barrel.[36][37]

Drop thecommaafter barrel

• Done

• One error in the inscription was that Arnold did not earn the rank of Major General after, and because of, Saratoga, but he became more senior than the other officers that had been promoted before him.[1]

• was that oristhat?
• "is" that, fixed

This is it for now, except to say: The article, in my view, is unique in American history and it's interesting and well done. It strikes me; however, that while the monument and Arnold would not seem severable, there islittle in the articleitself telling readers the most basic things about him.Pendright(talk)22:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pendright:I think I've addressed all your concerns above. Thank you for taking the time to add your comments! If I dedicate too much to Benedict Arnold in the article, it'll goWP:OFFTOPICand if anyone wants to know more about Arnold, they can read his article. Thank you again‍Relativity ⚡️18:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Henry Biard

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s):UndercoverClassicist(talk)

Henry Biard(edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Henry Biard was an early British pilot - aviator's certificate number 218 - and flew in both world wars, but became a national hero for his victory in the 1924 Schneider Trophy seaplane race. He was a close colleague and friend of R. J. Mitchell at Supermarine, where he served as chief test pilot between 1919 and 1928. A colourful character of the old school -- fond of a tall tale (not least his own autobiography, which imposes some interesting challenges of sourcing), not shy of speaking his mind, and every ounce the dashing airborne daredevil. Perhaps ironically given present company, Biard never seemed to take much to military life: he fairly literally crashed out of the Royal Flying Corps just before the First World War, had a fairly uneventful time with the Royal Naval Air Service, and seems to have spent the Second World War doing communications flights. Having recently passed GA, this article may be bound for FAC at some point, and I'd be grateful for some MilHist expertise on the military and technical side of it: almost none of this subject-matter falls into my usual areas of expertise.UndercoverClassicist^T·C20:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

HF

I'll try to review this over the weekend.Hog Farm_Talk17:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Do we know anything about his reasons for initially joining the military in 1913? Or anything about why he resigned the next year?
  • I'd imagine he says (or makes up) something in his autobiography (but see final point below) -- I've failed to find a copy, sadly, and it's out of print. If you take his story about being crashed by Trenchard as true (I must admit that I don't think I do), that probably played a role in it!UndercoverClassicist^T·C22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
    • just fyi, there is a copy in theNational Library of Australia,and there is a possibility to order a digital copy for 19 australian dollars per 25 pages.Artem.G(talk)14:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

      Cheers - probably a bit rich for my blood (it's 288 pages, and doing the maths on that made my wallet hurt), but I do periodically keep an eye out in case one turns up second-hand online for a reasonable amount. Could give it another go atWP:RXtoo.UndercoverClassicist^T·C14:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• "On 2 December 1917, Biard was commissioned into the Royal Naval Air Service" - is it known if this was a volunteer decision or conscription?
  • I don't: do the dates suggest the latter? My thought would be that it's pretty late to volunteer, but then equally I can see how his work training civilian pilots (presumably, who often then enlisted) could have been seen (at least by him) as war work of a sort.UndercoverClassicist^T·C22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
• "He is believed to have undergone training at the RNAS's flight school in Vendôme, France." - is this a generally held belief, or that of a specific author?
  • Bertram gives it as "it is believed" -- I don't suppose you know anything about RNAS flight training? I failed to find much background information; I assume this was simply what usually happened?UndercoverClassicist^T·C22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
• "Passaleva suffered from vibration caused by his propellor, which was beginning to delaminate after being immersed in water the previous day: however, the competition rules forbade him from changing it" - I tend to think this would read smoother if split into two sentences at the colon
  • Agreed and done.UndercoverClassicist^T·C22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
• "but suggested that airflow over the wings may have interfered with the aircraft's elevators and tailplanes, causing aileron flutter." - link aileron
  • Linked.UndercoverClassicist^T·C22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
• We have "The 1926 competition was for aircraft under 176 pounds (80 kg) that could fly with the greatest load-to-fuel ratio carried over courses that totalled 2,000 miles (3,200 km)" in a footnote, but then later, describing the aircraft entered into this challenge, we have the statement "The aircraft, 130 pounds (59 kg) heavier and 7 miles per hour (11 km/h) slower than the Sparrow I,". Did the Sparrow I really weigh 36 pounds or less? This seems unrealistic
  • Pegram messed that one up a bit: it'sengineweight, not total weight, and it was 170lb. Fixed from another source. Good spot -- I'd missed that, but it was a bit silly!UndercoverClassicist^T·C22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
• Is it known when he married?
  • I'd assume it's inWings,but I only managed to find indirect references to his being married: I couldn't even find the wife's name.UndercoverClassicist^T·C22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
• For FA status, you're going to need to be able to defend what makesThe Channel Islands and the Great Warpass the higher bar of high-quality reliable source
  • It's a tricky one: Bertram's a local historian and seems to be a good one, but he isn't a "proper" university-based academic. My sense is that the Ur-source for these pages is Biard's autobiography,Wings,which is out of print (and has its own problems!): in an ideal world, I'd like to get hold of a copy and cross-reference everything, and would probably be able to get rid of this website that way. I think everything cited there is relatively pedestrian and the sort of thing that we assumecouldbe easily enough found out and verified by a local historian (e.g. the dates at which he was at school: we'd expect that to be in a school archive, even if we can't ourselves easily access it). Not an ideal situation, granted: there's an essay somewhere about how we sometimes have to fall back on the best available sources, and that feels like the situation we're in here.UndercoverClassicist^T·C22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

My biggest concern here is not related to article quality so much but more placement of this in A-Class review. See note #3 atWP:MILHIST-Military service does not in and of itself place an individual within the scope of the project—particularly in the case of service in modern militaries. To qualify them, an individual's military service must have been somehow noteworthy or have contributed—directly or indirectly—to their notability.and Biard's military service seems rather incidental to his primary notability as an aircraft tester for private industry.Hog Farm_Talk21:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Honestly, I wouldn't have any disagreement with that -- I hadn't clocked it when going through the instructions. Appreciate your time so far: if it's felt that the article is ineligible for review here, I'm happy to withdraw it. On the off-chance, though: I wondered if you could give me a sanity check for the Second World War paragraph in the later life section? In particular, I've found that he was briefly moved to the General Duties branch of the RAF (shortly after the Battle of Britain), but am not sure if we can say anything useful from that about what he was doing.UndercoverClassicist^T·C22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with 20th century UK military systems either - I'm mainly familiar with the mid-19th century United States.Hog Farm_Talk01:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Zawedmight be able to shed light on some of the RAF stuff.Hog Farm_Talk23:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
      • Chipping in here, it is my understanding (note that I don't profess to be a specialist on the RAF so may be wrong here) that General Duties were 'frontline' personnel - pilots, other flying personnel, ground crew, staff and admin people whereas the Administrative and Special Duties Branch were older personnel fulfilling an admin, e.g. payroll, or a research role. That doesn't quite fit in with him being a communications pilot for the first 12 or so months of the war though. I wonder if the source is confused, and the period in the GD branch was when he was in that pilot role.Zawed(talk)09:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

        Hi Zawed -- thanks for chipping in with this. His service (see Discussion on the project page) has this kind of sequence:

        • Starting off in "admin duties"
        • Then moving to flying duties in the "Ferry Pilots Pool" (I assume that means flying people/things around the place?),
        • Then a few posts with the refuelling section (presumably what it says on the tin?),
        • Then some work as a "permanent duty pilot" at Northolt (could that be combat service?)
        • A short post at Bridgenorth for "No. 21 Fly: Control Course" (training or being trained?)
        • PDP at Penrhos (again seems to have been a training base: instructing?)
        • Two posts at different AGS (Air Gunners' School or Aircrew Grading School) -- presumably instructing in some capacity.
        • A couple more admin duties from late 1943, which would chime with an imminent departure for health reasons.

        Any thoughts on any of that? There's no indication from his later life that he was physically disabled (though equally there's no record of him flying professionally after the war): do you have any idea of what it would have taken for an officer to leave the RAF in 1944 for health reasons?UndercoverClassicist^T·C09:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

• Typo: "propellor"
• Convert horsepower to Watts?
• "the story was reported in the The Scotsman." Do wee need two "the" s?
• I fixed two CS1 warnings
• Any details about his marriages? (I found hisdivorce)

Hawkeye7(discuss)01:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Magnificent on the marriages -- one of his service records has thedateof his marriage, but no name. We can probably do something like "Biard married on 1 July 1914. In 1936, he divorced his wife, Simone...", which doesn'tdefinitivelysay that they were the same person. I'd imagine the date of marriage is on the document: I'm not in a position to get to Kew in the near future, unfortunately, but I'll try to get a look at it if I'm ever there.UndercoverClassicist^T·C07:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

This is always frustrating. If he were an Australian, his service record would be online, as would the newspapers and the registry of births, deaths and marriages.Hawkeye7(discuss)21:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I'vegotthe service record, usefully, but the "wife's name" field is blank -- despite there being a date entered for his marriage! One thought that hadn't yet occurred to me: I might see if there are any local newspapers around that date: it wouldn't be unusual to post an announcement in there.UndercoverClassicist^T·C09:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• Why do you believe "File:Supermarine Sea Lion II L'Aerophile October,1922.jpg" to be PD?
  • The source pagegives the "rights" as PD. Coming at it from another direction, it's published in a magazine but not claimed by the author, so the copyright for that publication presumably belonged to the publication itself (so PMA starts at the date of publication): for a 1922 publication, it's therefore out of copyright in both France and the US.
• "Schneider Trophy 1922 Course Map.svg": it would be helpful to have full details of the source, perhaps in the same format as used in Works cited.Gog the Mild(talk)19:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Lazy oversight on the part of the Commons author. I've fixed it for them.UndercoverClassicist^T·C08:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

HiUndercoverClassicist,some comments:

• "a public school on Jersey": "in Jersey"? I believe "on" would be better if the subsequent text was "the island of Jersey".
  • Changed.UndercoverClassicist^T·C10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link to Central Flying School?
  • Done.UndercoverClassicist^T·C10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link to Guernsey in the body on first mention?
  • Done.UndercoverClassicist^T·C10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link to the Italian language Wiki for Aero Club d'Italia?
  • Done.UndercoverClassicist^T·C10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link to Air Ministry?
  • Done.UndercoverClassicist^T·C10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• "was organised by the Blackshirt leader and future marshal of the Italian Air Force, Italo Balbo": consider changing to "was organised by Italo Balbo, the Blackshirt leader and future marshal of the Italian Air Force"? The former phrasing could be seen asWP:SEAOFBLUE,only a comma is separating the links to Balbo and the IAF.
  • Done.UndercoverClassicist^T·C10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link to Jonathan Glancey in the body and biblio?
  • Done.UndercoverClassicist^T·C10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• "in common with": consider changing to "like"?
  • Done.UndercoverClassicist^T·C10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link to Float (nautical) on first use, instead of later on?
  • Done.UndercoverClassicist^T·C10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link to wingspan and strut?
  • Done.UndercoverClassicist^T·C10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link to Walter H. Longton?
  • Done.UndercoverClassicist^T·C10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link to Royal Aero Club?
  • Done.UndercoverClassicist^T·C10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link to bank (banked turn)?
  • That's for land vehicles; the closest article we currently have isAircraft flight dynamics,so linked there.UndercoverClassicist^T·C10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link to rate of climb?
  • Done.UndercoverClassicist^T·C10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Is there a link available for Frimston 2006? If a future reviewer wishes to do a spot check, they will need it.
  • I don't; can't remember where I got that one, unfortunately.UndercoverClassicist^T·C10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link to Jeffrey Quill, Eric Brown (pilot)?
  • Both done.UndercoverClassicist^T·C10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

That's all from me, cheersMatarisvan(talk)17:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for these: very useful. All replies above.UndercoverClassicist^T·C10:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  Happy tosupportfor promotion to A class.Matarisvan(talk)14:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Also @UndercoverClassicist,I found this link for Frimston 2006: [https://dokumen.tips/documents/aeroplane-magazine-apr-2006.html?page=24#google_vignette]. I added the volume, issue and series number, also the ISBN. However, the source is a little shady, you should decide if you want to include it or not. If not, you can always download the PDF, upload it to web.archive.org and link there. CheersMatarisvan(talk)19:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for those details: agreed, that source is pretty much certainly straightforward copyright infringement, as the magazine is less than 20 years old and this is clearly not an authorised open-access release by the copyright holder. Downloading it and uploading it somewhere else would, therefore, also be copyright infringement.UndercoverClassicist^T·C06:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  I had somehow forgotten about that due to the age of the subject matter. But now at least you won't have any issues with the spot checks. Also, I will do the source review here as WPMH requires one, the image review is already done.Matarisvan(talk)16:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Current reassessments

Please add new requests below this line

Sihanouk Trail

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s):Schierbecker(talk)

Sihanouk Trail(edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I am nominating this article, originally promoted in 2006, for A-class reassessment. AsUser:buidhepointed out on the talk page two years ago, there are outstanding verification issues. Nine citation needed tags.Schierbecker(talk)22:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I wonder ifMztouristis still on Wikipedia.Hawkeye7(discuss)03:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I am and can take a look at it, though logistics isn't really my thing.Mztourist(talk)03:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Schierbecker,I might be able to rework this article to A level. What is your expected timeline for this?Matarisvan(talk)12:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

First off, thank you for offering to improve this article. Just checking. Are you sure you know what you are getting into? A class is no joke. It can be very time-consuming to bring one article up to A-class, much more two. You know the source material or are willing to learn it? I ask because your account isn't very old.Schierbecker(talk)14:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I can. I have been working on the GA reassessment of theGalatian Wararticle, you could check that one out to see if I might be able to rework this one or not.Matarisvan(talk)18:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• DelistThis has been open since March and there have been no edits to the article since May. As the problems with the article remain outstanding and no work is underway to fix them, it should be delisted.Nick-D(talk)10:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @Nick-D,I have been busy with some other GA and FA rewrites and thus sadly couldn't make the time to work on this article. I hope to start in 2-3 days and my most optimistic estimate is that I can get the article back to A class level within 10-15 days after starting work. I hope that is not too much time, this reassessment being open since March and no edits since May bother me too.Matarisvan(talk)18:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @Schierbecker,my apologies but I can't find the time to work on this article's rewrite because I currently have to do rewrites for 2 FAs and 2 GAs. I thus have to vote for adelistfor this article.Matarisvan(talk)16:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)