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 the MILHIST A-class criteria and ensure that the article meets most or all of the five (a good way of ensuring this is to put the article through a good article nomination or a peer review beforehand, although this is not mandatory).
2. If there has been a previous A-Class nomination of the article, before re-nominating the article the old nomination page must be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article/archive1 to make way for the new nomination page.
3. Add A-Class=current to the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (e.g. immediately after the class= or list= 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 following these 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 imply QPQ).

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 a Featured article candidate, undergoing a Peer Review, or have a Good article nomination at the same time.

Commenting

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

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

Comments Reviewing by Username

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

Support / Oppose Comments reviewing by Username

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

Comments Reviewing by Username addressed / not addressed

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

Requesting a review to be closed

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

After A-Class

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

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) please leave 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}} on article talk page	• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=pass	• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=fail	• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=kept	• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=demoted • Reassess article and record new class
The MilHistBot will take care of the details. For detailed advice and manual procedure instructions see the full Academy course.

Current reviews

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of 42nd Street

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): History6042 (talk)

Battle of 42nd Street (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Battle of 42nd Street/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Battle of 42nd Street/archive2

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I want to take it to FAC soon. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, @Gog the Mild, @UndercoverClassicist, @Nick-D, @Hog Farm, pinging people who reviewed the previous FACs or suggested I bring this to A-class first. History6042 😊 (Contact me) 21:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

I think the reviewer you really want is Zawed, an expert on New Zealand military history. Anyway, I will get the ball rolling with a series of suggestions.

• Background:
  • The summary gives the wrong impression that the British decided to send troops to Greece immediately after the Italian invasion, but the British offer of support was not accepted until February 1941, and no British force was sent to the mainland until March.
  • Not all were "soldiers", as the figure included the RAF
  • "The German army high command was preoccupied..." Recommend deleting this sentence, as it only confuses the reader, since Crete was invaded.
• Forces:
  • "On 29 April 1941, Major-general Bernard Freyberg" Capitalise "general" here.
  • "By 29 April, over 80,000 Commonwealth troops of the defeated Allied expeditionary force were evacuated from mainland Greece." This contrdicts the previous section, which said 60,000
  • In English, the convention is to use Roman numerals for corps
  • Since this article is on the Battle of 42nd Street, it would be better if it gave the forces engaged there, rather than on Crete in general.

• Battle:
  • Could we have page numbers instead of Chapter 9, Chapter 10 etc?
  • The dispositions along 42nd Street were arranged by Brigadier George Alan Vasey and Major-General Edward Puttick
  • "the German 1st Battalion" Of which regiment?
  • "Captain Elmo Dudley Nelson" -> "Captain St Elmo Dudley Nelson"
  • "Over 280 Germans were killed and three taken prisoner" The Australians estimated that they had killed about 200; the New Zealanders, more than 80. But it is only an estimate.
  • How about adding a map?

• Aftermath
  • "121 soldiers from 1st Battalion" Avoid starting a sentence with a numeral. (MOS:NUMNOTES)
  • Walker did not surrender the 2/7th

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Goodrich's Landing

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Battle of Goodrich's Landing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is another of the series of Vicksburg campaign articles which I have been taking to FAC. Most of the more minor ones have gone straight from GAN to FAC to not clog up the ACR process, but I'd like to get more eyes on this one before a potential FAC due to the undertones of questionable extracurricular behavior which accompanied the operations. I don't have the information to prove it, but I strongly suspect that some vague statements that turned up in a family history research project reference an ancestor of mine participating in the related NE Louisiana operations with Tappan's brigade. Hog Farm _Talk 04:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Nick-D

This isn't a battle I'm familiar with, but I find this campaign really interesting. Thanks for developing the article. I'd like to offer the following comments:

• "after consultation with Brigadier General James C. Tappan" - say who he was

  I've glossed this in the lead. Hog Farm _Talk 03:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• A map of the general strategic situation in the Vicksburg area would be really useful for the Background section

  I've added one which shows the relative locations of Lake Providence, Milliken's Bend, and Young's Point to Vicksburg. Hog Farm _Talk 03:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• The para starting with "Parsons's men approached the mound"

  Nick-D - I'm guessing this is related to the length of the paragraph? I've broken it into two paragraphs. Hog Farm _Talk 03:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Can anything be said about the relationship between the white officers and African-American troops prior to the battle? It seems that they weren't enthusiastic about this assignment given the rather dishonourable way they treated their men. Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm noting that I have seen these - I will need to do some research for the final point (and I don't understand the third one). I will post here once I've finished researching; it should probably be mentioned that the prognosis for captured officers of the USCT units was poor. Hog Farm _Talk 18:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  I'm yet to turn up much dealing specifically with the 1st Arkansas - but I've added some information regarding two things here. First, that the officers in these regiments had been recently promoted several grades at once. Second, that the Confederate government considered the white officers in the black regiments to be inciting servile insurrection so they faced possible execution if captured. Burkhardt specifically ties the surrender decision to the threat of execution. Hog Farm _Talk 03:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

I've never heard of it either, although that is not surprising... except that Americans reckon that the Battle of Long Tan doesn't deserve an article.

• I note in passing that Americans seem to have many words for the same thing: Colored, African descent, Negro, African American, Black. Should "Negro" be consistently capitalised?
• Should there be casualties in the infobox?
• Link cotton gin? Delhi, Louisiana?
• "Barnickel also places the value of the captured Blacks as over $100,000 in the Confederate slave economy, providing an economic rationale for the Confederates to not kill the surrendered prisoners." We've heard this one before: that the high value of slaves would mean that they would be treated well.
• "30 or 40 foot square fort" Conversion?
• "Ralston's Mississipppi Battery" I think there are only two p's in Mississippi. (Maybe everybody does it in America.)
• "firsthound accounts" Arf! Arf!
• "that as many was 128"
• "The raids had only a temporarly impact on Union operations."
• "The Confederate initially intended to keep the infantry in northeastern Louisiana" Which Confederate are we talking about here?
• "an exaggerated version of the finding of human remains in burned-out buildings by Ellet's men during the Goodrich's Landing operations" This is the first mention of this.
• "a lurid story published in the Missouri Democrat newspaper" Was this the The Missouri Democrat?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Conscription in Rhodesia

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Conscription in Rhodesia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The white supremist state of Rhodesia, which existed in Africa from 1965 to 1979, is perhaps one of the few countries to have been crippled by military conscription. The national service scheme enabled the creation of a large-enough military to deter a potential British assault to end Rhodesian independence. However, once the nationalist insurgency really got going in the mid 1970s the only way the Rhodesian Security Forces could maintain white rule was by calling up so many white men that it contributed to massive emigration from the country which in turn forced a transition to a majority government. As such, this article covers a key aspect of Rhodesian history, as well as the history of the Rhodesian Bush War.

I developed the article during the middle months of this year as a follow on to other articles on Rhodesian military history I've been working on. It was assessed as a GA in October and has since been considerably expanded and copy edited. I am hopeful that the A-class criteria are now met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

USCGC Dione

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): PhoenixCaelestis (talk)

USCGC Dione (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I want this article to one day become a FA. I am confident that it meets the criteria. Who doesn't want the read the story of a little 165-foot long Coast Guard cutter, the sole ship capable of repelling German U-boats off the American coast during 1942? Oh, did I mention she had an interesting merchant ship career too? Plus, there's no Coast Guard representation in the warships FA topic.. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 15:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

Apologies for the long wait to get a review. This is a great article.

• Glad you enjoyed it. I've got high hopes for her. PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 21:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• "She had a gross register tonnage of 256 and a net register tonnage of 174." Suggest adding "tons" to the end of the sentence.
  • "Tonnage" being presented there already, in my mind, has that covered. If someone else brings it up I'll change it.
• "Following the beginning of World War II" - a little ambiguous here, as the US was not yet officially at war
  • The USCG source is ambiguous as well, keeping it as is.
• "397 Allied ships were sunk by U-boats between January and June 1942,[35]

  Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure (MOS:NUMNOTES)

  • Done.
• "during the time period that was referred to as the "Second Happy Time" by Kriegsmarine officers as well as Karl Dönitz—Admiral of the Kriegsmarine."

  I would pipe Admiral to Admiral (Germany). Also, I think it would be worth mentioning that he was the Admiral Dönitz was the admiral in charge of the U-Boats. (He was promoted to admiral on 14 March 1942.) (Fun fact: His uniform and baton are on display in the Internationales Maritimes Museum Hamburg.)

  • • Very cool, did not know that! Added.

  Italicize Kriegsmarine - use a {{lang}} template.

  • • Done.
• "Andolphus Andrews, the Admiral in charge of the Eastern Sea Frontier"

  "Admiral" should only be capitalised when used as a title ie just before a name.

  • • Done.

  More importantly, Andrews was only a rear admiral at the time. (A character saved from notoriety by obscurity.)

  • • Done.

  And his first name was "Adolphus", not "Andolphus"

  • • Autocorrect, undoubtedly. Fixed.

  Link Eastern Sea Frontier.

  • Linked twice previously (in lead and WWII section), but I guess I can link it again.

    My mistake. No need to link it again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

  • • • • I’ll delink.
• "After determining that U-boats generally attacked at night, McCormick decided to abandon his usual routine in favor of grid-searching the waters off the Outer Banks for U-boats;[1]:27 [43]:28  these would utilize a World War I-era sonar system[39]:24  and other types of sound-detection gear"

  But somehow he missed the fact that the U-Boats operated on the surface at night, so this would not have worked. (Although once they figured out how effective the US Navy was, some started sailing on the surface in broad daylight. Dixie Arrow was sunk by a U-Boat in daylight.) Do you know if Dione had radar?

  • This is close to the wording in Hickam's book. Dione had sonar from WWI, which is mentioned somewhat in Hickam's book but not in this section.

    I'm therefore guessing that it did not have radar, but we do not have a source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

    Elaboration: She gained a radar set in 1945 (specially an SF set) and her sonar was upgraded to a QCN-1 system that same year (this is per the USCG source and the Scheina book). She supposedly carried a World War I sonar system not mentioned in the USCG page, but would make sense considering what takes place in Hickam's book. The reference for the sonar system is a newspaper article from a 1991 reunion (which also says she had no radar). PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 02:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  • • • Yeah, no radar in 1942.
• "A Coast Guard airplane from the Elizabeth City Air Station dropped two depth charges with unknown results"

  I think you have a shrewd idea what the result was.

  • • Removed "unknown results"
• " As a result, large amounts of oil bubbled to the surface."

  No U-Boat was sunk though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

  • • Edited slightly.
• "The convoys that she escorted were nicknamed "bucket brigades" after the old-fashioned method of transporting buckets during a fire."

  Well, yes, but I'm not sure the reader will understand what you're talking about. Under the bucket brigade system, convoys sailed by day and took shelter in harbours at night. It was possible in that part of the world because there were so many good harbours north of Cape Hatteras. Consider adding this explanation to the article.

  • Do you have a source I can add for this bit? I'd be happy to add it if so.

    Sure. Morison, Samuel Eliot (1947). Volume I: The Battle of the Atlantic, September 1939 - May 1943. Boston: Little, Brown and Co. pp. 132–133 and 254–256.. Well worth a read if you want to write about the "Happy Time". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

    I've added the info and source. And thank you for the recommendation, I'll add it to my rather lengthy Christmas list of books.. PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 02:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  • • • I’ll add this tomorrow when I get a chance.
• "echos" -> "echoes"
  • Fixed both instances.
• Link The Saturday Evening Post
  • Already is.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

HF

I'll get around to reviewing this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 03:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Good to hear. I'll be really busy today after about noon EST so I probably won't be able to reply this afternoon/evening, but I'll definitely get to your comments by tomorrow or Saturday. PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 12:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

It'll probably be tomorrow before I can get to this. Hog Farm _Talk 01:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

All good, works for me haha. ~

I am in no hurry. PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 02:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hate to ping @Hog Farm, but is there an update? I understand life may get in the way. PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 01:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• "Dione became the sole ship in the Fifth Naval District capable of opposing German U-boats" - maybe I'm reading the sources too narrowly but the claim there is "only one large antisubmarine ship" which could in my mind indicate that other vessels were capable of opposing the U-Boats, but just less effectively.
• "She was recommissioned in February 1953" - the infobox and article body indicate that this should be February 1951?
• "briefly seized by a US Marshal in February 1970 in pursuant of an arrest warrant filed by the Crownwell Corporation" - I think ship arrest would be a better link here
• "The design was intended to balance and exceed in speed, seaworthiness, range, radio equipment, and armament." - exceed what?
• "U.S. Coast Guard and Revenue cutters, 1790-1935." - shouldn't Cutters be capitalized?
• "Dione cost US$285,000 to construct." - per the source, it was a cost of $258,000

Ready for the Coast Guard Service section; more to follow tomorrow. Hog Farm _Talk 04:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

2001 Biggin Hill Airshow disasters

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): 11wallisb (talk)

2001 Biggin Hill Airshow disasters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article covers an aviation event over a weekend in June 2001. Two different British military aircraft crashed on each day of the event, along with another aircraft that had an incident when landing. The events of this weekend have had substantial coverage from the media and in publications and is quite a major part of British aviation history and military history due to the type of aircraft involved in the accidents. Sir Kenneth Hayr was one of the pilots lost in these accidents, he was a senior RAF commander and Deputy Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Strike Command and Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Commitments.

Having recently passed a GA review and with improvements that can still be made, I feel this article is appropriate for an A-Class review by the Military history WikiProject. Whilst my knowledge of general aviation is okay, the article would benefit from actual experts reviewing it! Thank you! 11WB (talk) 05:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Feedback from Swatjester: On a brief skim of the page, the biggest problem I see is that the prose is densely packed with aviation jargon in a manner that both obscures what actually happened, and seems questionable in accuracy. For instance, During a level turning 405° to the left, -- was this supposed to imply that the aircraft was instructed (or planned) to make a full 360 degree left-hand turn followed by an additional 45* turn to the left? Is it a typo meant to be a 45* turn to the left? Or is it that the aircraft was supposed to make a left turn to bearing 45*? Because of the confusing wording it was unclear (I simply removed the portion as it didn't seem relevant). But much of the article has this same issue. For instance, The warbird then went out of sight for twenty seconds before it was directed to the right at 220°. Does "directed to the right" mean directed by ATC to turn to bearing 220? Does that mean the pilot commanded a right hand turn to bearing 220? A right hand turn for 220 degrees starting and ending from an unknown bearing? What element of "Aircraft flight dynamics" does this relate to? (Again, I've already fixed this example, but it is illustrative of a general problem). I also see some other issues with the descriptions of the aerobatic maneuvers. It then flew in the direction of the crowd and then pulled up into a loop maneuver, topping out inverted, full nose-up elevator was maintained with right rudder application. The aircraft moved to the right and fell into another incipient spin. The nose turned toward the ground with the rudder returning to neutral, full nose-up elevator staying the same. Elevator is neither nose-up or nose-down; it is either deflected upwards or downwards without any bearing or relationship to the nose. This nonstandard terminology does not help because the prose is describing the aircraft's behavior inverted in a loop (in which "nose-up" and "nose-down" are reversed with respect to the ground). Further the mention about right-rudder application is confusing here. A loop is a purely vertical aerobatic maneuver requiring no rudder input except to adjust for wind and torque. Further, "right rudder application" has no impact on the elevator, or pitch, or attitude, so the statement that "full nose-up elevator was maintained with right rudder application" is facially incorrect. (I suspect this is meant to be actually 'Full nose-up elevator was maintained, with right rudder application...' i.e. two separate clauses not modifying each other, but as written this is not clear and the incorrect version is the one more likely to be intuited from this wording). What it sounds like you're trying to describe there is that the pilot inexplicably added right rudder at the apex of the loop, causing a spin that was unrecoverable. (Note: we also do not appear to explain the difference between an incipient spin, i.e. one caused by unequal yaw moment before the spin has stabilized; and a developed spin, i.e. one that has a stable rate of rotation and descent, usually after the first rotation). I might be able to spend a little more time this week reviewing the article, but I'd submit that the prose for the actual incident needs rewriting before I'd support an A-class rating. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I do agree with you. Unfortunately, I am not an aviation expert in any way, only an enthusiast. However, as I am sure you knew from the offset, I tried my best to collate the information for the article in the best way I could. My reasoning for coming here was in the hopes to improve the article beyond what has already been done. Your criticism of terminology is exactly one of the things that needs to be worked on and is not something I can do alone, due to my knowledge only extending so far. Due to this limitation, I don't know which sources to search for to back up what the AAIB report has said, for example on the bearings. I've been editing for a bit of time, however what to include in terms of specifics in articles like this, I genuinely need guidance on. @Swatjester 11WB (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Of course. I'll try and help identify what areas that I can, however I'm not overly familiar with the disaster itself and my aviation experience is with helicopters (and not fixed-wing aerobatics). Part of the exercise I was doing in my original feedback was basically reading through the description and trying to visualize the flow of events in my head. My goal is not to nitpick about terminology, but to help ensure that a non-expert reader who is coming to the article for the first time would be able to understand it more easily. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Thoroughly appreciate this, thank you. When I was researching this, I had little to no understanding of the terms, however I understood what each term corresponded to based on the available video footage of the displays. I wish to ask, does this article qualify for an A-Class review under this WikiProject? WP:AVI/A is, to my knowledge, currently inactive, and the other relevant projects don't actually have them at all. 11WB (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Edington

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Thelifeofan413 (talk)

Battle of Edington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I want to promote the article to Featured status. I am ready for any changes and any adjustments. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Note on sourcing

• Ref 47 Electronic Sawyer is unsatisfactory. It goes to an online record of Alfred's will, but the ref covers 3 citations and only the first relates to Alfred's will. You cite the will in Keynes and Lapidge for the first sentence, so why not the second? You will need reliable sources for the other two citations in ref 47.
• You should also cite Keynes and Lapidge for the treaty ref 62.
• Ref 48 cites a record of a primary source. The whole paragraph needs citing to a reliable secondary source(s).
• Ref 67. Project Gutenberg has an outdated 19C translation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. There are up to date translations of the relevant years in Keynes and Lapidge and in Swanton, both of which you cite.
• In the sources you should supply full details of the Bennett article, journal name and number etc.
• Burkitt is not a reliable source. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Coordinator comment @Thelifeofan413: can you please respond to these comments. Nick-D (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

    I have finished these. What else do I need to do? Thelifeofan413 (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

    Nothing more with these comments, as long as @Dudley Miles: considers their comments to be addressed. Please note that it's good practice to follow up on comments promptly wherever possible. Nick-D (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Further comments

• I may not have made myself clear about Electronic Sawyer. It is the authoritative source for charters. I was not objecting to you citing it but to referencing the wrong document. Ref 46 (in the version I commented on) is for Alfred's will in Keynes and Lapidge, which is OK. You then mention a later meeting and again (wrongly) cite Alfred's will for it, this time in the Electronic Sawyer. You have now deleted this ref and replaced it with 19C Birch and Sawyer's original 1968 book which is the basis of the Electronic Sawyer. These are both out of date and I cannot check them as I do not have them. You should cite a modern academic reliable source for the charter (and maybe the correct charter in the Electronic Sawyer, although this is not necessary).
• If you want to cite a charter you should cite the Electronic Sawyer, not his 1968 book which is now out of date. I cite it as (of course you do not have to stick strictly to this but you should show the charter number):
• "Charter S 905". The Electronic Sawyer: Online Catalogue of Anglo-Saxon Charters. London: King's College London.
• Sawyer was the editor not the author of The Illustrated History of the Vikings. You need to show the author and chapter when you cite the book.
• Smyth was a controversial historian who denied that Asser was the real author of the life of Alfred the Great. Few if any historians now accept his claims. His 1995 book needs to be used with care and there is no reason to use his 2002 translation, which is never cited by academic historians so far as I know. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

HMS Lizard (1757)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Euryalus (talk)

HMS Lizard (1757) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A 28-gun RN frigate present in all the major British wars of the late eighteenth century and instrumental in the capture of nine enemy vessels, before being converted to a hospital ship for sailors suffering from yellow fever and the plague. Eventually sold out of service after a surprising 71 years. I mostly wrote this article in 2018 and then sort of forgot about it. Hoping it meets the current A-class standards, and either way happy for any suggestions for futher improvement. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Support by Dumelow

I am not an expert on ships so please feel free to ignore or correct me on anything maritime-related

General

• There are six separate references to what looks to be the same document (Naval Documents of the American Revolution Volume 11), can these be combined?
  • Done
• Consider providing modern equivalents for monetary values using template:inflation
  • Done for initial construction and the major repair. I didn't add for the more minor costs as it breaks up the sentences a bit. But let me know if you think it better to add them too.

Fine by me, they can be in brackets or I have also seen them at FAC as footnotes.

Construction

• Might benefit from a short explanation of what a frigate was and how it differed from the ships of the line also mentioned in this section
  • Sorry for the delay. I've tried to do this as a footnote, it's a large topic so hopefully my summary is sufficient. Let me know what you think either way. The text can also be moved from the footnote into the main section if prefered. In passing our Ship of the line article could do with better referencing, but that's a project for another time.

That's more than I expected but I think it is useful information

• "Bird would receive a fee of £9.9s per ton"

I think it would be worth linking £sd here as it will likely be unfamiliar to most international/younger readers

• • Done
• "Lizard's keel was laid down on 5 May 1756, and work proceeded swiftly with the fully built vessel ready for launch by April 1757, well"

Should be "fully-built", I think?

• • Done
• "being 118 ft 8 in (36.2 m) long with a 97 ft 3 in (29.6 m) keel, a beam of 33 ft 11 in (10.34 m), and a hold depth of 10 ft 6 in (3.2 m). These minor variations in dimensions"

The only dimension we've given previously was for tons burthen, do we know any of the other intended dimensions?

• • Added the contracted measurements, which were slightly less than what Bird built.

I think you can omit the "these slightly exceeded the dimensions..." as you now say " the vessel's hull was slightly larger than contracted" in the previous sentence

• "with Bird receiving the full amount of £5,540.14s for his shipyard's work"

This is slightly less than 590 multiplied by £9 9s, stated in the previous paragraph. Do we know why?

• • No, sorry. Looks like the Navy stiffed him for £34. Could have been a penalty for exceeding the specifications, or maybe reflect the dates of payment (with a further bill coming in later)? Could also reflect a disagreement on the actual size, given tons burthen are a measurement of hull volume which would be empirically hard to assess in a new-built ship, epecially in a private dockyard. Unfortunately the secondary sources (principally Winfield) that list the final cost don't give more detail. Ironically Bird was declared bankrupt eight years later, and may have wished he had that extra cash.

Fair enough

• "In selecting her name the Board of Admiralty continued a tradition dating to 1644 of using geographic features for ship names"

Commas often trip me up but I feel this could use one after "in selecting her name"?

• • Done
• "With few exceptions the remainder of the class were named after figures from classical antiquity, following a more modern trend"

Again, I could well be wrong but a comma after "With few exceptions"?

• • Done
• There is a more specific article at Captain (Royal Navy), you can link instead of Captain (naval)
  • Done
• "Among these other ranks were four positions reserved for widow's men – fictitious crew members whose pay was intended to be reallocated to the families of sailors who died at sea"

I think this could be relocated to footnote c where the widow's men are mentioned.

• • Agree it's odd to split these two sentences between article and footnote. As an alternative I've actually removed the footnote as it's basically definitional and can be found at the wikilink. Let me know if this looks okay.

Fine by me

• "Armament comprised 24 nine-pounder cannons located along her gun deck, supported by four three-pounder cannons on the quarterdeck and twelve 1⁄2-pounder swivel guns ranged along her sides."

I think per MOS:NUMNOTES ("Comparable values near one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently") the quantities should all be in figures or spelt out ie: "24 ... 4 ... 12" or "twenty-four ... four ... twelve". My preference would be the former as this will also distinguish from the cannon poundages.

• • Done
• "In sailing qualities Lizard was broadly comparable with French frigates of equivalent size, but with a shorter and sturdier hull and greater weight in her broadside guns."

The "in sailing qualities" part of this sentence read a bit strangely to me, can it be introduced a bit more naturally?

• • I've tried rewording this - let me know what you think.

Looks good to me

• "She was also comparatively broad-beamed with ample space for provisions and the ship's mess, and incorporating a large magazine for powder and round shot"

The last clause reads better to me as "...and incorporated..."

• • Does it work simply by removing incorporating" altogether? Agree it is an odd sentence structure, hopefully improved now.

Yep

• "Lizard's dimensional ratios 3.57:1 in length to breadth, and 3.3:1 in breadth to depth, compare with standard French equivalents of up to 3.8:1 and 3:1 respectively."

Reads better to me with "of" before "3.57:1"

• • Done
• "Royal Navy vessels of equivalent size and design to Lizard were capable of carrying up to 20 tons of powder and shot, compared with a standard French capacity of around 10 tons. They also carried greater stores of rigging, spars, sails and cables, but had fewer ship's boats and less space for the possessions of the crew"

From the context I wasn't 100% sure which nationality the "they" referred to in the last sentence. Can we state "English" or "French"?

• • Done
• "The frigate was plagued with construction and maintenance difficulties throughout her seagoing career, requiring seven major repairs or refits between 1769 and 1793"

I would use Lizard here, at the start of a new paragraph

• • Done
• "Privately built vessels during the Seven Years' War"

Should be "privately-built", I think

• • Done
• "Privately built vessels during the Seven Years' War were also hampered by the unavailability of seasoned oak, as the Royal Navy's supply was preferentially allocated to ships of the line. Smaller vessels such as Lizard were therefore routinely repaired with unseasoned timber which could warp as it dried, causing cracks in decks and gun ports and leaks along the hull"

Would probably benefit from a link to Wood drying

• • Done

The first sentence here refers to privately-built ships but the second one to repairs. Should the first be "privately-repaired" or was it that unseasoned wood was used in construction also?

• • Reworded slightly, hopefully better. Britain had a critical shortage of oak when trying to expand its Navy for the Seven Years' War. Native and imported supplies were preferentially used for ships of the line, which needed very stiff timbering both to withstand combat and maintain the massive weight of their upper decks and masts. Lizard was lucky enough to be oak-built in an era of oak scarcity, but private shipwrights used thinner timbering than the royal dockyards, resulting in weaker hulls. Repairs for these smaller vessels were often either unseasoned oak or other timbers like fir, both of which could warp.

Will review remaining sections when I can - Dumelow (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Seven Years' War

• Is Vincent Pearce likely to be notable enough to warrant the redlink?
  • Yeah, probably not. Fixed.
• Consider linking Fitting out
  • I think this is already wikilinked in the construction section above?

Yep, I missed that, thanks

• "It was in this second capacity that Lizard secured her first victories at sea, with the capture on 12 July 1757 of a 6-gun French privateer L'Hiver,"

I think this should be "of the 6-gun French privateer"

• • Done
• I would consider naming the ship at the start of the second paragraph, rather than "the frigate"
  • I think I was trying to avoid starting two sucessive pars with the same word, but appreciate this may have reduced readability. Fixed.
• Do we know what happened to the Thetis during the action mentioned?
  • Thetis fought for two hours, but this was obviously going to be a losing battle against three British frigates so she abandoned the convoy and fled into a river mouth. Added, plus a death toll for Lizard.

Thanks, that's good info.

• " A further victory was secured on 2 October when Lizard pursued and captured Duc d'Hanovre', a 14-gun French privateer"

Is that a stray apostrophe or part of the ship's name?

• • It's part of the name, though it's called different things in different sources: Clowes calls it Duc d'Hanovre while Winfield calls it Le Hanovre. I've noted the alternative spelling in a footnote.

Sorry, I meant the apostrophe after the final e in "Hanovre"

• "which sailed as part of the expedition in January 1762"

I would consider linking as "the expedition" to make it obvious it goes to a specific article on this event

• • Done
• "assault on Havana, Spain's Caribbean capital"

I've never heard Havana referred to as a capital in this context before, is this a formal or informal designation?

• • Informal, though it was by far the largest and strongest Spanish settlement. Interestingly its fall to the British in 1762 has been credited as inspiring the first real sense of domestic patriotism as betrayed Havanans coped with their perceived abandonment by the mother country. The literature and sentiment from this post-invasion period apparently then played a role in Cuba's wars of independence a hundred years later. But back to the point: have changed it to stronghold for the purposes of this article.
• I would add a note somewhere that Spain joined the SYW in 1762, the article only mentions it previously as a war with France
  • Done
• Consider linking Flagship
  • Done

Peacetime service

• I would use the name of the ship at the start of the opening sentence
  • Done
• I would work in a link to Capture of Port Egmont somewhere
  • Done
• "until September when she was assigned to patrol and privateer-hunting along the North American coastline"

Reads better to me with "duty" added between "privateer-hunting" and "along"

• • Done

American Revolutionary War

• There is a missing ref at the end of the first paragraph
  • Added
• I would consider stating a little bit about the war, mentioning that France, Spain and the Netherlands joined the colonial side.
  • 'No problems, will do tomorrow

Not sure if you've got around to this?

• "On 28 January she and HMS Carysfort captured French sloop Notre Dame des Charmes 19 miles off Charles Town, South Carolina. On 1 February, 1778 she and HMS Carysfort captured Dutch brig Batavear off the mouth of the Santee River, South Carolina. On 24 February, 1778 she captured French ship "Glanure" 5-6 Leagues off Charles Town."

All read better to me with "the" added after "captured"

• • Done

Glanure has quotation marks instead of italics

• • Fixed

Commas between the months and the year aren't in compliance with MOS:DATE

• • Can't find this in the section, may have fixed it with a previous edit?
• "she captured the enemy cutter Jackal"

Any clue as to the nationality of this vessel?

• • British, ironically. It was the former HMS Jackal, whose crew mutinied and sold her to the French in 1779.
• Leeward Islands Station and Ship_commissioning#Ship_decommissioning linked here, have been linked before
  • Fixed
• "Peace negotiations with France from 1782 were accompanied by a decline in naval activity, leaving the frigate surplus to Admiralty's needs"

I think this should be "the Admiralty's"

• • Done

Still to look at the last two sections as well as the lead and infobox - Dumelow (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

French Revolutionary Wars

• "Civil unrest in France in early 1790 encouraged Admiralty to increase the number of vessels in active service"

Think this should be "the Admiralty"

• • Done. I do this a bit I think (ie call the Admiralty just Admiralty). It stems from not using the definite article before ship names, and is a bad habit in terms of readability.
• "she was joined to a squadron of six ships of the line under the overall command of Admiral Hood, which was sailing for Jamaica with two regiments of the Coldstream Guards."

The Coldstream Guards is (and was) a single regiment, should this perhaps be "two battalions of the Coldstream Guards" or "two regiments of Foot Guards"?

• • Removed the mention of the Coldstream Guards: the source refers to draughts of men including some from the Coldstream Guards but its difficult to determine precisely how many +/- what other regiments they might have been taken from, so better to take it out. Basics for the ship are unchanged: joined to Hood's squadron bound for Jamaica.

Lead

• "she was armed with 24 nine-pounder cannons, supported by four three-pounders and twelve 1⁄2-pounder swivel guns."

As previous, amend for compliance with MOS:NUMNOTES

• • Done
• "Lizard saw active service between 1757 and 1793"

She wasn't on active service that whole time, perhaps "periods of active service"?

• • Done, also reworked the second par to better explain the periods of service (and agreed, remove St Kitts and Montreal. She was marginally invovled at best). Let me know what you think of the new wording if you have a moment.

The French Revolutionary Wars section notes she served in the North Sea until 1794

• • Added
• "British capture of Quebec City and Montreal, the Siege of Havana and the Battle of St Kitts."

I am not sure the article currently supports that she played a role in the Montreal and St Kitts actions, perhaps there is more that can be added?

• • Done
• "She also secured a total of nine victories at sea over enemy vessels, principally French privateers in action in American and European waters."

I counted a few more than nine mentioned in the article. Can you check and amend? Or perhaps a more vague statement in the lead?

• • Fixed. I included both Thetis and Calypso in these figures, as the soruces indicate the work was principally done by Lizard. Of course while both were defeated, neither was actualyl captured.
• "Lizard eventually becoming the last of the Coventry-class vessels still in operation"

I don't think this is supported by the article text

• • Added a ref for this and a footnote on the next-longest serving, which was Carysfort from 1767-1813
• "was sold for scrap at Deptford Dockyard in September 1828."

The article text doesn't mention the location of her sale

• • Apologies, this is a typo. The body of the article is correct - she was sold at Sheerness, not Deptford.

Will check over the infobox when I can - Dumelow (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Infobox

• I think you probably need a citation for "Lizard was built to the same design as HMS Carysfort"
  • Done.
• The length stated is half an inch longer than that in the article text and that it was measured at the gundeck is not stated in the article
  • Fixed
• The length at keel is a quarter inch shorter than stated in the article
  • Fixed
• The 9-pounders are stated as located on her upperdeck but on the gun deck in the article text
  • Fixed
• Sail plan is stated as fully rigged but not mentioned in the article, I know that as a frigate she would be fully rigged but I think it is worth stating this.
  • Done

That's everything from me - Dumelow (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Support, looks good. I think you mean nineteenth here though "At the time she was the last of the Coventry-class still in use, and the only one beside Carysfort to have remained in service during the eighteenth century" - Dumelow (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Image review by PhoenixCaelestis

Three images here.

• File:Carysfort cropped.jpg
  • Listed as public domain
  • Made in 1816
  • Any way its size could be increased?
• File:Battle of the Plains of Abraham 1.svg
  • Own work of a now-inactive user.
  • Listed as CC 3.0
  • Unconcerned
• File:Rear-Admiral Charles Inglis.jpg
  • Created 1783
  • Listed as public domain
  • Unconcerned

A cool article to read, good luck with this! PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 16:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

1931 Salvadoran coup d'état

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): PizzaKing13 (talk)

1931 Salvadoran coup d'état (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another Salvadoran coup! I currently have the 1979 coup that ended the Salvadoran military dictatorship up for an A-class review, and now I'm putting up the coup that started that dictatorship for review. The 1931 coup overthrew Arturo Araujo who won El Salvador's first ever real, democratic election and installed his vice president, General Maximiliano Hernández Martínez, as provisional president. (The only general officer rank in El Salvador at this time was "General" so all mentions of "General" are correct.) This article meets all the GA criteria and I believe it meets the A-class criteria. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 04:42, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Support by Dumelow

Looking at the prose:

• "During Araujo's presidency, El Salvador's economy was continuing to struggle as a result of the Great Depression."

The present tense ("was continuing") felt a bit strange here.

• Changed tense

• "Around 900 university students protested against the Legislative Assembly believing that the legislature was considering approving an additional loan and accusing it of selling out El Salvador to foreigners"

Again, I might change go with ""Around 900 university students protested against the Legislative Assembly as they believed that the legislature..."

• Changed tense

• "The National Guard forcibly suppressed the protest, injuring many and arresting up to 30 students in the process"

Reads better to me as "The National Guard forcibly suppressed the protest, arresting up to 30 students and injuring many others"

• Changed

• "In response to continued to protests, Araujo called for municipal elections..."

Something is awry in the first clause here

• Rephrased

• "In August 1931, the Salvadoran Laborist Party proposed a bill to the Legislative Assembly to dismiss military officers who did not perform active duties in an effort to collect their salaries."

I couldn't follow this sentence, were the Laborists intending to collect the salaries of the dismissed officers?

• Rephrased

• "Later that month, however, Araujo's government suspended all payments to the military entirely due to a lack of government funds."

I think you only need one of "all" and "entirely" here

• Fixed

• "El Zapote barracks, where the coup began"

I would consider adding the date the photo was taken to this caption to make it clear it is much later than the events described

• Added date

• "Araujo arrived in Santa Tecla where he planned to initiate a countercoup, however, the barracks opposed his continuance as presidency."

I don't think "barracks" can oppose something. "the soldiers at the barracks there", or similar?

• Changed

• "He then fled to Santa Ana where he rallied hundreds of supporters to regain power.[16][19] Ultimately, Araujo concluded that his army in Santa Ana would be unable to regain power"

I would consider deleting the first "to regain power" here

• Removed

• "he resigned from the presidency, named the first presidential designate as his successor"

Do we know the name of the successor?

• Yes, Salvador López Rochac. Added

• Consider linking the military ranks of sub-lieutenant, lieutenant, captain, colonel and general

• Linked all at first mention

• "his opponents argue that he organized the coup" ... "but his opponents argue that Martínez's arrest was fabricated"

Might fall foul of MOS:AWW. Can we name the opponents?

• Sources don't specify further than "his detractors" said this.

• "The United States government refused to recognize Martínez's government as it violated the 1923 Central American Treaty of Peace and Amity which prohibited signatories from recognizing governments formed through coups."

I would replace "it" with "to do so" here

• Changed

• "Federal Research Division historian Richard Haggerty described the coup as a "watershed" event in Salvadoran history"

I would perhaps put "US" before Federal Research Division here, to make it clear where they are from

• Done

• "The 1931 coup established a military dictatorship that ruled El Salvador for five decades"

Here and in the lead this should be "almost five decades" if it ended in 1979

• Done

• "The government's economic measures were unpopular with both the Salvadoran people and the armed forces"

I am not sure this is supported by the text. The only mention of civilian discontent is the protest by 900 students and I am not sure there is much said about the opinion of the military except that one person says they began planning a coup after payments ceased.

• Removed the sentence

@Dumelow: Thanks for reviewing this! PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 02:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Support although "In August 1931, the Salvadoran Laborist Party proposed a bill to the Legislative Assembly collect military officers' salaries by dismissing those who did not perform active duties" still doesn't read right to me - Dumelow (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

John Cecil Russell

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Dumelow (talk)

John Cecil Russell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A late-Victorian British cavalry officer whose rise under Garnet Wolseley in the Third Anglo-Ashanti War led to royal connections. During the Anglo-Zulu War he was accused of cowardice and relieved of command but it doesn't seem to have affected him too badly as he went on to command his regiment and retired as a major-general. Passed GA earlier this year and nominating as I don't think there's anything else I can add to it, if it passes I may take it to FAC so please don't hold back - Dumelow (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

Look very good.

• Why is his date of birth missing? (It was 6 December 1839. [1])

  Good find, don't know how I missed that! Added, and also mentioned the period his children were born in - Dumelow (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Early career

  Suggest replacing "Russell" with he/him after first mention in the second paragraph.

  Agreed and changed - Dumelow (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  Link Brigadier-General (United Kingdom), Major-General (United Kingdom), Lieutenant-General (United Kingdom), Indian Mutiny

  All done and a lt-col which I think I missed too - Dumelow (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Zulu War

  Does Redvers Buller have a rank?

  He was a brevet lt-col at this point, added. Also added Wood's rank of colonel- Dumelow (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Later career

  Suggest replacing "Russell" with he/him after first mention in the second paragraph.

  Had a go at reducing these - Dumelow (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  " Frederick Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts," -> Field Marshal Frederick Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts

  Added and linked. Thanks for the review and suggestions, much appreciated! - Dumelow (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

FYI: I have expanded this article a little with information from a new source I have just received access to - Dumelow (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

HF

I will try to review this over the weekend. Hog Farm _Talk 04:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

• Anything noteworthy about what he did to warrant his mentions in the despatches?

I've not been able to track down his MiDs, it is made a little more complicated by the fact that his namesake and fellow cavalry officer Baker Russell played a large role in the Ashanti war (and indeed the Sekhukhune and Zulu wars) - Dumelow (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Any information about what exactly his assignments were in the Sekhukhune War?

Nothing specific, I suspect he had a role with the c. 600 mounted component, which was a bit of a hodgepodge of colonial volunteers and ad-hoc British mounted infantry. I've added a bit of background about the campaign. At some point I hope to write articles on the two Sekhukhune wars - Dumelow (talk) 08:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• "50 miles (80 km) into Zululand to rescue around 1,000 dependents of a Zulu chief, uHamu, who had defected to the British." - is the Zulu chief UHamu kaNzibe?

Good spot; it is, yes. I have linked - Dumelow (talk) 08:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

This is in quite good shape; I anticipate supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 02:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Support Hog Farm _Talk 01:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Support from PM

Will take a look.

Lead and infobox

Will come back to this, but now that you know the DOB, you can add it to the first sentence. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Done

• comma after "Oxford University Rifle Volunteer Corps"

Done

• comma after "Edward, Prince of Wales"

Done

• suggest "On 28 March, Russell led part of the British force in the Battle of Hlobane, but was criticised for his perceived abandonment of a detachment commanded by Redvers Buller which was attacked by the Zulu."

Done

• you can clarify his age at death in the infobox now

Done

• you could put his father in the infobox under Relations

Done

• optional: to dispense with the bullet points in the infobox you could use {{unbulleted list|}}

Oh, yes I prefer that. Done

Early career

• suggest "and was appointed adjutant on 18 October."

Done

• was he twice mentioned in despatches during the latter part of the war? This is how it appears from the prose, as it stands.

The source has it taking place during the second phase of the war, which includes the battles mentioned previously but not necessarily the same period he was DAAQG. I've split the MiDs out to the next paragraph to avoid the linkage

• More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Zulu War

Appointment

• not sure about the hyphenation of sub-ordination, my computer shows it as a typo.

I agree, removed

• "raised by the Colony of Natal"

Done

• "all of the officers of the Natal Mounted Police" that were part of the volunteer units, or the officers still serving in the police?

The former, the sources imply some of the police did not volunteer and remained in Natal, the black constables certainly did. I have added "with the invasion force" to this sentence

First invasion

• not sure about the initial capital in "Action at Sihayo's Kraal", as "Action" as the first word of an article title, is often part of a descriptive title rather than a common name for the event

Agreed and decapitalised.

• suggest "column inland, Russell commanded a scouting party seeking the next camp site"

Doh! Done - Dumelow (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• what is intended with "Russell led the vanguard in the columns" a single column or more than one? In terms of adding an apostrophe, I mean.

Ah, I missed the apostrophe. Added

• suggest "On 22 January, Chelmsford led a portion of the Centre Column on a reconnaissance in force from Isandlwana to Mangeni Falls. Despite his official position as a staff officer, Dartnell was placed in command of the Natal mounted volunteers, reducing Russell's command to the Imperial Mounted Infantry. While the reconnaissance force was away from the camp, the remainder of the Centre Column were ..."

Thank you that is much better, change made

• Russell reported in person to Chelmsford? It isn't clear.

Yes, have added Russell's name here to make clear

• "Russell led the Imperial Mounted Infantry forwards to investigate"

Removed "s"

• comma after "British hands"

Added

• suggest "the supply base at Helpmekaar also remained in British hands."

Added

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Hlobane and Kambula

• suggest "During the pause in operations, on 15 February 1879 Russell was sent with his squadron of Imperial Mounted Infantry to Wood's Left Column"

Done

• suggest "When he joined the Left Column, in addition to his mounted infantry, Russell was given command of the Edendale detachment of the Natal Native Horse, which had survived the Battle of Isandlwana."

Yes that is much better, done

• you don't need to say Buller was Wood's subordinate, saying he sent him infers he was subject to his commands

Remvoed

• is "to ascend the East of Hlobane" right? ie is there a geographical feature known as "the East of Hlobane", or should this read ""to ascend from east of Hlobane"?

The latter, so the capitalisation was incorrect. Changed as you suggest

• "sent Browne and a party of dismounted men" I was a bit confused here due to the earlier mention not only of Lieutenant Edward Browne, but also Commandant George Hamilton-Browne. I suggest that here you re-gloss Browne by way of "Lieutenant Browne of the mounted infantry squadron" or "Lieutenant Edward Browne etc"

Good point, I went with "Lieutenant Edward Browne"

• from which direction were "the main Zulu army approaching"?

Added "from the southeast"

• was the second message sent by rider or on foot? because sending a message by runner seems an odd thing for a mounted troop commander to do in the first place

On rechecking the sources I am not sure where I got that a second message was sent to Buller, I could only find that one was sent to Wood. I have deleted the former. The message to Wood presumably went by horse as he was off the mountain, Browne had been sent dismounted as the Devil's Pass was considered uncrossable by mounted men.

• comma after "When the Zulu charged"

Done

• do you mean "Russell was unhorsed"? to me, dismounted infers it was deliberate

Yes, unhorsed in better. Changed

• Frontier Light Horseman→dismounted trooper

Done

Later career

• GEOCOMMA after Kent

Done

• suggest "arising from Hlobane, and noted that"

Done

Personal life and death

• any idea why Arthur Conan Doyle visited him? Seems to hang, asking the question.

A local history group website says it was for shooting and gives an extract from a book they have published through Halsgrove. I wouldn't normally put great stock in local history groups but have found confirmation that Conan Doyle visited in an album of photos held by the Suffolk Record Office that also includes shooting scenes so it looks correct. If there's issues with reliability, I can just delete the bit about Conan Doyle

• It looks very much like Barton Court is now Barton Court Grammar School

Good find, linked

That's it for a prose review. Nice work thus far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

One final thing, you could add Category:Equerries. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Done

Coordinator comment @Dumelow: will you be able to respond to Peacemaker67's comments this weekend? The article will be ready to promote once Peacemaker is in a position to support the nomination. Nick-D (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]; I had missed this on my watchlist. Peacemaker67, thanks so much for your review; I think I had responded to all of you comments above and below. Please let me know if there is anything further - Dumelow (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Source review

The sources all appear reliable and appropriate, with the exception of those listed below, they are complete and properly formatted. The footnoting is properly formatted except as listed below.

• fns 50 and 53 should be pp. not p.

Done, well spotted!

• should fn 2 have a pp.?

It's because I sued cite journal here which doesn't add the "pp", I've switched it to cite news which does and brings it into line with the Law Times citation. There is perhaps an argument to move these to the "Sources" section and cite with sfn but they are both anonymous and cover only two pages so doesn't feel very helpful.

• OCLC for Burke?

Added

• ISSN for Castle?

Added

• OCLC for Lodge?

Added

• some sources have a publication location specified, others don't

Good point, think I have picked these up now

• you could author-link John Burke (genealogist), Saul David and Edmund Lodge

Done those and Knight, Morris, Laband

That's it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:49, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Source review passed Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

This needs an image review. Hi Nikkimaria would you have time to take a look, please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

Had a go - Dumelow (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• File:Jc_russell.jpg needs a US tag, and the UK requires that the image description includes details on what research was done to try to ascertain authorship

I did think the RCT had more on its page to explicitly say the author was "unknown" but they don't or it's changed. I've emailed them to ask if they know who the author is (their version has a handwritten note part cut off at the lower right and potentially there may be something on the reverse). It is the size of a carte de visite so I have asked them if they think this is the case, which would indicate a publication around the time it was taken. Will update when I hear back - Dumelow (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• File:Russell_and_buller_hlobane.png needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Have confirmed the map was published by the War Office in 1881 (from my reprinted 1989 edition of the original work) and so is well out of Crown Copyright which applies world wide. I have amended the tags - Dumelow (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

USS Missouri (1841)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): GGOTCC (talk)

USS Missouri (1841) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As the most incompetent apprentice in the history of the Navy an ocean engineering major, the first USS Missouri (no, not the one on the front page yesterday) hold a special place in the lore of US Navy engineers. Her introduction brought the Navy kicking and screaming into steam era, and both established and legitimized the roles of engineers throughout the fleet...before one of them dropped a wrench, destroyed the ship, and nearly got everyone killed. Regardless, Missouri and her sister are officially considered to be among the most impressive early engineering feats in US naval history, at least according to the Navy in 1937 and a mosaic which depicts the six ships that hold the title. I was also motivated to write this article after meeting the US Navy's Curator of Models. We worked together to identify a bunch of old ship models, and we had to rely on Wikipedia to identify some of the most difficult. Since the US is shockingly underrepresented in the list of FA/GAs on Wikipedia, I wanted to change that and improve the copy+pasted DOAFS entries with legitimate articles. GGOTCC 00:52, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

Reminds me of the 1980 Damascus Titan missile explosion, in which a wrench was dropped, destroying a Titan missile and its silo, and sending a 9-megaton warhead flying through the air. (It was retrieved undamaged.) Of course, this sort of thing would not happen in the US Navy these days. (Just kidding.)

• Seems that these wrenches are quite dangerous! They need to be banned!

Some comments. The article looks great to me:

• The ships were named after the rivers and not the states?
  • Yes! Back before the Civil War, the US Navy wanted to find uniquely "American" names for ships, which were often rivers (Potomac-class frigates) or Native American tribes (Wampanoag-class frigates). It was only after a Civil War was a nominally unified naming scheme introduced that emphasized state names.
• "By 1839, both the French and Royal navies had at least 15 steam warships in service" The Royal Navy had 27 steam vessels in 1836 and 80 paddlewheel steamships by 1842. [2]
  • This is a good point, but I am unsure where to add the claim without either backtracking or accelerating the timeline. The source is true but is specific to 1839 to directly compared the USN and RN.
• "sistership" -> "sister ship"
  • Done
• Space after the following full stop.
  • Done, thanks!
• Link "curt-martial" to "Courts-martial of the United States"?
  • Done
• "President Tyler" -> "Tyler" ? (MOS:SAMESURNAME)
  • Done
• "Captain Newton" -> "Newton" ?
  • Done
• "the disaster was due to the steam engines" Meaning that the use of steam was still considered controversial?
• Since this article is in US English, should it be Gulf of America?
  • Gulf of Mexico is more common, even in American English. I have also seen pushback against the term here on Wikipedia.

    I would expect the old name to be more common, since the Americans only renamed it this year. Any other reason for the pushback? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Review from Dumelow

I've written a handful of ship articles in my time but I am not an expert so ignore anything that is outside of usual practice for maritime articles. Also I use British English so ignore any ENGVAR mistakes I have made - Dumelow (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Development and design

• "To prevent hogging (longitudinal bending), the ships were the first American vessels that included diagonal iron straps intended to strengthen the hull"

This sentence begged the question as to how the diagonal straps were placed, lengthwise or transverse?

• "Armament consisted of an eight Paixhan 8-inch (20 cm) gun broadside that fired 68-pound (31 kg) shells and two bow-mounted Paixhan 10-inch (25 cm) guns that launched 120-pound (54 kg) rounds."

May be worth linking Bow (watercraft)

• • Done!
• "While generally similar, Missouri was praised as having an interior, "much superior" to that of her sister ship Mississippi."

I might use "otherwise" instead of "generally" and mention Mississippi earlier in the sentence, but I'm not overly fussy about it.

• • Good idea!
• "The final design had provisions to support a complement of 226 sailors and officers for four months"

The design would have had "space" or "capacity" to store provisions not provisions themselves.

• • Good catch!
• "The main difference between the ships were the engines, as the Navy wanted to investigate different designs."

At the start of a new paragraph I would namecheck the sister ship again.

• "Missouri was equipped with four (or three) double return copper boilers"

Worth explaining why it is 4 or 3, perhaps in a footnote. Presumably there are differences in the sources?

• "The engines turned two 28-foot (8.5 m) tall, 11-foot (3.4 m) wide paddlewheels"

Might be worth mentioning whereabouts on the ship the wheels were located

• "an average speed between 7–10 knots"

Might be personal preference but I would expect "average speed between 7 and 10 knots" or "average speed of 7–10 knots"

• "Each paddle had a length of 6 feet (1.8 m) and a width of 3 feet (0.91 m); there were 21 paddles on each wheel"

I might reverse the structure of this sentence as I was unclear about what the paddle was (as distinct from the paddlewheel) at first glance. Something line "Each wheel had 21 paddles with a length of..."

In the Americas

• "Her engines were designed by Charles Copeland,"

I would name the ship in this first sentence of a new section

• "she was completed and commissioned"

Worth linking Ship commissioning here

• • I always forget that!
• "The ship reached her destination on the 13th, and proceeded to undergo further trial runs to demonstrate the power of steam propulsion in rivers to the government."

The position of "to the government" felt a bit strange here, is "demonstrate to the government..." better? Perhaps I would also say "members of the government"

• • How is "The ship reached her destination on the 13th, and proceeded to undergo further trial runs to demonstrate the power of steam propulsion in rivers to members of the government."
• "She operated with the Home Squadron, who complained about her high costs to coal and operate"

Consider avoiding repetition of "operate" here

• • "Assigned" works better
• "that critics alleged was due to nepotism"

Which critics?

• "The trial did not meet Thompson's expectations, and he successfully blamed Haswell for the poor performance."

Begs the question how, if Haswell opposed the idea? Also if he Haswell was successfully blamed why was Thompson sacked and replaced by Haswell

• "However, the event ruined Thompson's reputation with the Navy, and in the resulting political fallout, he was ousted from the Navy and replaced by Haswell by the next year"

I would omit the second "the Navy" here

• "The organizational changes within the Navy was a part of a larger restructuring"

I would use "were a part" here

• "For most of mid-1843, she was overhauled,"

For the starting sentence of a new paragraph I would namecheck the ship. DO we know where she was overhauled?

• "On either 5 or 6 August 1843, work was complete and she embarked US Minister to China Caleb Cushing, who was sailing to Alexandria, Egypt. "

I would reverse this as "Work was completed on either 5 or 6 August..." I would also go with a wording that emphasises the ship was going to Egypt not just Cushing.

• "She sailed from Norfolk to Fayal, where she loaded coal before continuing her voyage"

I would explain where Fayal is, at least stating the Azores as the individual islands are not well known.

Destruction

• "Her arrival marked the first powered crossing of the Atlantic by an American warship, and was applauded by British sailors when she arrived"

"her arrival ... was applauded by British sailors when she arrived" doesn't read right to me

• "At 7:50 pm, coal heaver John Sutton was in the starboard engineering storeroom looking for a pair of weighing scales. When he grabbed the items from a shelf..."

Is a pair of scales "items" or just an "item". Do we even need to say he was looking for a pair of scales, why not just say "At 7.50 pm coal heaver John Sutton took a pair of weighing scales from a shelf in the starboard engineering storeroom"?

• "In the engine room, Alfred Clum saw the liquid drip"

What position did Clum hold?

• "The first lieutenant responded"

Do we know his name?

• "Missouri was flooded with 8 feet (2.4 m) of water and rested at an angle on the ocean floor"

"ocean" feels a bit dramatic for Gibraltar, maybe "harbour"

• "Congress had also thanked the Governor of Gibraltar for aiding the crew, and she was slowly dismantled"

Strange mixture of facts in this sentence, sounds like the governor is being dismantled

• "Cushing traveled China, and arrived in February 1844."

Missing "to", do we know how he travelled there?

• "Her chief engineer was also court-martialed, and was suspended for one year. His punishment was suspended eight months into the sentence."

Is there a better way to word this other than suspending a suspension?

Image review from PhoenixCaelestis

There's four images used here..

• File:The Burning of the USS Missouri in Gibraltar.jpg

• Listed as public domain
• Made 1843
• Creators listed
• Featured picture
• Good caption
• Unconcerned

• File:Mississippi, starboard side - NARA - 513004 (cropped).jpg

• No known date or creator
• Loaned from national archives
• Any reason why this image isn't the infobox photo? I don't usually see "action shots" as the infobox image. You could just make a note that it's her sister ship, like what's done in all those torpedo boats of the Royal Yugoslav Navy. Granted, that's just my preference.
• Listed as public domain
• Good caption
• Unconcerned

• File:Caleb Cushing.jpg

• Listed as public domain
• Made between 1860 and 1880
• In national archives
• Is "Caleb Cushing, whose voyage to China was the motive for Missouri to sail to the Mediterranean." a full sentence? I would change it to "Caleb Cushing; his voyage to China was the motive for Missouri to sail to the Mediterranean"

• File:Edward Duncan - The Explosion of the United States Steam Frigate Missouri (cropped).jpg

• Listed as public domain
• Date and creators listed
• I think the caption could use a minor tweak. How about The crew of HMS Malabar (left) watch the magazine of USS Missouri explode after attempting to help the Americans fight the fire

My first time reviewing anything A-class related, please correct me if I've made mistakes. PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 13:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• @PhoenixCaelestis: Hi PhoenixCaelestis, it's been a while since we talked! It is good to see you. I certainly appreciate the feedback, and am excited about your work on Dione. I added your feedback for the image of Malabar and Cushing. Thank you! Regarding the inbox photo - while I would normally agree with you, I use the illustration (image?) for the design section as the article compares and contrasts the two ships. I think the current placement and the caption building off of the prose is better where it is now rather then disconnecting it and placing it in the inbox. If you feel differently, then please tell me! I completely understand where you are coming from. GGOTCC 06:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

  Hey @GGOTCC. Would it be too much to take another image of her sister and use it for Missouri’s infobox image? Again, I’d leave a note. They were sisters after all, and if the only changes were the engines and interior furnishings, than their exteriors should look identical. The current infobox image would go well as the starting image in the section about her fire. PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 22:16, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

  I see your point, and I swapped out the images. Thank you! GGOTCC 19:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

SMS Prinz Heinrich

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

SMS Prinz Heinrich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is the second to last article of this Featured Topic to grace MILHIST's A-class review page, which I hope to get to FA in the near future. Prinz Heinrich was one of two German armored cruisers to survive World War I (if we discount Fürst Bismarck, since that one saw no front-line use during the war). Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

• Reviewing now! GGOTCC 19:00, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Prose (will update)

• I changed in addition, Prinz Heinrich and the Prinz Adalbert and Roon classes to Prinz Heinrich, Prinz Adalbert, and Roon classes. Hope you dont mind
  • Fine by me
• Fourteen Dürr water-tube boilers, produced by Düsseldorf-Ratinger. Please wikilink Dürr boiler, and the later mention of Audorf-Rendsburg
  • Good catch
• Is there a need to mention the abbreviation VAdm if it is not used again? Is there a reason why Commander of Scouting Forces not also presented in German?
  • Nope!
• Should I Squadron be wikilinked?
  • Good idea

Images:

• Do we need two different images of her going through the same canal? It feels redundant to me, as those images do not add anything new to the reader.
  • Fair enough
• File:German Marine School on "Prinz Heinrich" LCCN2014701613.jpg should be cropped imo.
  • Done
• The caption of File:SMS Prinz Heinrich coaling.jpg seems off. According to the Wikimedia caption, the image was during coaling experiments, not when she was actively being coaled. This is also supported by the image, as it does not appear she is onloading coal, but bringing the collier alongside.
  • The caption is correct - if you look closely, there is a line between the two ships and bags of coal are being passed ahead to Prinz Heinrich - you can read a brief description of the experiments here (in the leftmost column toward the bottom).
    • @GGOTCC: - it's been quite a while, is there anything else you'd like me to address? Parsecboy (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Support from PM

G'day Nate, big effort to get this FT all to FA, nearly there!

Lead and infobox

Will come back to this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

• probably worth adding that it was more effective but thinner armor
  • Good idea
• decap Raid
  • Done
• suggest "but never encountered hostile forcesany."
  • Good idea
• suggest linking naval gunfire support for "gunfire support"
  • Done
• suggest "and again shelled Russian positions
  • Done
• check the conversions in the infobox match the text, rounding errors
  • Fixed, I think
• suggest putting what sort of length in the infobox (oa?)
  • Done
• suggest linking kW in the infobox
  • Done
• if the autocannons were included as built, the should probably be in the infobox, as that is the convention if I remember it right?
  • I'm of two minds on this - generally yes, the box is for the original configuration, but I don't know what exactly these were (Groener, Conway's, etc. are silent on the type/caliber). I could add a "4 × autocannon" to the box, but it would be better IMO if we at least knew the caliber.

Otherwise, all good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Up through these comments so far. Parsecboy (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Design

• Suggest "In the past, some older naval historians, including Hugh Lyon and John Taylor, writing in 1979 and 1969 respectively, claimed that ..., but in 2016, Aidan Dodson pointed out ..." this uses a consistent tense as well.
  • Done
• Probably worth going the extra step and explaining that the sheathing reduced the need for dry docking and hull cleaning?
  • Good idea
• "the new ship's size" displacement? To a layperson size would be length, breadth etc perhaps, and AFAIK displacement is how the weight of ships is measured? Same for "weight reduction".
  • A fair point
• "it was connected to the lower edge of the belt" - with the caveat that I know next to nothing about armour belts on ships, why wasn't it connected to the upper edge of the belt? Wouldn't that have better protected whatever was between the deck and the deck armour?
  • The idea was that a shell would have to pass through the belt and then the deck (and generally, coal would be stored in the compartment between the two), before it could get into anything vital. Eventually, it was determined that connecting it to the top of the belt was a better idea (since you increase the volume of protected space and thus buoyancy even if you have to increase armor thicknesses to get the same level of protection)
• "four heavy guns" seems to imply that this ship's guns were not as heavy, but weren't they of the same calibre?
  • Tweaked to (hopefully) improve clarity
• "to be concentrated inaround/over the battery."?
  • Done
• link ihp?
  • Done
• Suggest "As with the follow-on Prinz Adalbert and Roon classes"
  • Good catch
• "Prinz Heinrich was inadequately protected" in what respect? armour not thick enough?
  • Lyon doesn't go into detail, just stating that all of the ships "were not very well protected" - presumably thickness of armor. The contemporary British design, the Cressy class, had a belt that was up to 6" thick
• earlier it says that the secondary guns were concentrated in a battery, as distinct from dispersed in casemates and sponsons along the hull, but here it says they were casemated. Perhaps modify what is said earlier so that this doesn't appear as a contradiction? Also, from the diagram they appear to have been on two levels, presumably the upper ones were less affected by heavy seas?
  • Clarified
• why does the length to breadth ratio affect speed?
  • It determines the hydrodynamics of the hull - longer hulls could have finer lines, and were thus faster (all else being equal) than shorter, stubbier ships (though that came at the expense of maneuverability)
• can you add a sentence explaining what innovations in cruiser design made her so redundant so quickly?
  • Added a footnote

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Up through another chunk. Parsecboy (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Dimensions and machinery

• could you link seakeeping for "good sea boat"?

• Done

• link roll to Ship motions?

• Done

• what are the implications of a transverse metacentric height of that extent? ie what effect would that have on the ship? It's proximity to the mention of the severe roll implies there is some link between the two?

• Generally, the greater the metacentric height, the more a ship rolls - but I don't have any sources to really put the figure in context, and our article on metacentric height isn't exactly great at explaining the concept, so it may just be better to remove the figure.

• you could link flagship here

• Done

• link picket boat?

• Done

• link screw to propeller?

• Done

• link kW in the conversion?

• Done

• was the range with the additional storage or the base storage of coal?

• Groener doesn't say, unfortunately

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Armament

• "Prinz Heinrich was armed with a variety of weapons." seems a bit unnecessary. Could probably be dispensed with?

• Sure

• were they "one on either end of the superstructure" or "one at either end of the superstructure" the first implies they were mounted on top of the superstructure, but from the drawings they appear to be on the deck?

• "At" is correct

• were the secondary battery all single guns?

• Yes

• where were the 8.8 cm guns positioned? Spaced out along the sides?

• The sources don't say specifically

• what calibre autocannons and where were they mounted? Also, if included "as built" should they be in the infobox?

• As above, nobody says for sure - likely 3.7cm or 5.2cm, as the Germans used light weapons of those calibers

Armor

• There has already been an explanation of the armor, so I suggest you go with something like "Her Krupp armor belt was ..."

• Done

• suggest "It was reduced to 80 mm ..."

• Done

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Service history

Peacetime career

• suggest "training activities inof the squadron"

• "with" is probably better here

• "with included the light cruisers Niobe and Nymphe." typo?

• Fixed

• "she stayed in Vigo, Spain" add a comma after Spain per GEOCOMMA

• Fixed

• suggest "for accurate gunnery by large cruisers"

• Done

• "Prinz Heinrich had spent two years"

• Good catch

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

World War I

• consider consistency with admiral ranks, either rear admiral or KAdm (Hipper)

• Good catch

• same with Commodore or (presumably) KzS?

• Done

• suggest "While en route, the cruisers were intercepted by the British submarine E9"

• Sounds good to me

• suggest "1 to 2 August thatand again"

• Done

• Consider linking Rendsburg

• Done

That's it for prose. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for a thorough review! Parsecboy (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Source review - passed

All the sources are reliable and appropriate for the subject, the footnoting is formatted properly.

• suggest author-link for Paul G. Halpern
  • Good idea
• is there a numerical identifier available for Scheer? OCLC?
  • Added

Otherwise GTG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

G'day Nate, just checking you've seen the above. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been busy lately - I'll try to address your review tomorrow. Thanks for the ping. Parsecboy (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Parsecboy, I found no issues except the few I edited myself. I can therefore support based on my prose review. Cheers « Return to A-Class review list

Bertrand Clauzel

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): LeChatiliers Pupper (talk)

Bertrand Clauzel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review on behalf of LeChatiliers Pupper Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Cheers I cant figure out what I was doing wrong but thanks for the help :)

--

Just a couple notes for reviewers I did the B class review myself - this is also the first time I reviewed anything on wiki. So I apologise if there are substantive errors there.

As for why I'm submitting, the page has been expanded about 400% and has had a peer review and help from the guild of copy editors too. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

• Link National Guard (France)
• There is a portrait of Clauzel (File:Bertrand Clauzel (1772-1842) par Georges Rouget).jpg) available
• "The Dropsical Woman the painting was gifted to Clauzel who..." Run-on sentence
• "The Dropsical Woman" -> The Woman with Dropsy Should be in italics wherever it appears. (MOS:NAMESANDTITLES)
• "He was personally gifted the Gerard Dou painting, The Dropsical Woman, the King of Sardinia had previously received offers to buy it for one million francs." Another run-on sentence
• "where it remains today" Consider using {{As of}} (MOS:REALTIME)
• "In 1799, Clauzel was promoted to général de brigade." It was in 5 February. Be precise to help people trying to use Wikipedia to find facts.
• "during the campaign that spring" Avoid using seasons to refer to a time of year. (MOS:SEASON)
• "with a promotion to Divisional General" -> général de division ({{lang|fr|[[général de division]]}}) Consistency and capitalisation
• "General Thouvenot" -> Général de brigade Pierre Thouvenot with link. He has not been mentioned before.
• "conspired on a plot to overthrow Rochambeau and exile him" Delete "on a plot"
• "Until in 1806 when he was sent to the army of Naples" -> "In 1806 when he was sent to the army of Naples"
• " Wellington, having previously secured key fortresses at the Spanish–Portuguese border " -> General Lord Wellington
• "Lourve" -> "Louvre"
• "Due to his donation to the Lourve of the Dropsical Woman because it was the first painting to be donated to the Louvre Clauzel's name is at the top of the list on the plaque visible in the rotunda of Apollo." Run-on sentence; re-phrase
• "Clauzel's name is one of 660 French generals whose names are inscribed on the Arc de Triomphe, his name appearing at the top of column 34 on the west side. " Another run-on sentence

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, sorry I only saw that there had been comments now. But yes I have made all of these corrections, checked for style consistency too and reworded / split some more run on sentences. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, any futher comments? Matarisvan (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Just a few:

• Lead: Do not link the names of present-day countries.
• Link Absolutism (European history)
• "Gabriel embraced the Revolution, he was on the Committee of Surveillance of Mirepoix." run-on sentence.
• "invest in" should be Investment (military) piped to "invest"
• " It was within this role, he negotiated" -> " In this role, he negotiated"
• " on the 5 of February" -> " on 5 February"
• "in the attack on Monte-San-Giacomo [It]" Use the {{ill}} template ({{ill|Monte-San-Giacomo|it|Colla di San Giacomo}}) ie "in the attack on Monte-San-Giacomo " This will cause the link to turn blue if/when the English language article is created.
• " Then, as the Army of Melas pushed towards the city" Comma after "city"
• Pipe link Fort-Dauphin to Fort-Liberté
• Link yellow fever
• "Bourbon absolutist King Charles". Link Absolutism (European history) and use the form "Charles X"
• "Clauzel's attempts collapsed; his actions lacking sanction from his superiors in Paris." Tense conflict. Either "Clauzel's attempts collapsed, his actions lacking sanction from his superiors in Paris." OR "Clauzel's attempts collapsed; his actions lacked sanction from his superiors in Paris."
• "But, this course was necessary if France was to strike at Constantine with the limited forces in theatre." Join with the previous sentence and remove the comma.
• "McDougall also, argues Clauzel's arrangements with Tunisian rulers failed to completely understand Algeria" Delete the comma here.
• "Other assessments note the lack of political support in France which limited the success of Clauzel's actions in Algeria." Move this sentence to the previous paragraph to avoid one-sentence paragraphs.
• 'He lived in retirement " -> "Clauzel lived in retirement"
• "Because Clauzel donated the Woman with Dropsy, the first painting to be donated to the Louvre Clauzel's name is at the top of the list on the plaque visible in the rotunda of Apollo" -> "Because Clauzel donated the Woman with Dropsy, the first painting to be donated to the Louvre, Clauzel's name is at the top of the list on the plaque in the rotunda of Apollo"

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you again these should all be implemented LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Moved to support. Cheers! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

HF

I will review later this week. Hog Farm _Talk 21:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• "the Guard was deployed by his father Gabriel to invest in the episcopal palace of Mirepoix and harass the bishop in 1790" - this doesn't make since? "invest in" would be a financial transaction, which doesn't seem to be what's being indicated here. I'm guessing you mean "to invest the episcopal palace ...", using the verb form of invest which refers to placing something under siege?
• "Clauzel would donate it to the Louvre where it remains today." - while this appears to be true, we can't support a statement of something continuing to the modern era to a source from 1844.
• "In this rank, he continued to served in Italy, during which he won great distinction[2] at the battles of Trebbia and latter Novi where fought on the left wing of the army initially helping to stabilise it against the Austrian attack but managed to retreat his own brigade after the enemy breakthrough enveloped much of the French and trapped them the Bormida river." is very much a run-on sentence
• "During his time in Le Cap, he purchased at auction a house previously owned by Toussaint Louverture, during latter corruption controversy over property in Algeria he would cite this as a model purchase that furthered French national interests encouraging stability in the fragile colony" - I don't think this is quite grammatical.

Honestly, I don't think the prose quality is up to standard. There are terms that don't appear to be used correctly, awkward grammatical construtions, and there's a general stilted feel to the writing. This really needs a copy edit (WP:GOCE does good work) before it can be considered for promotion to A-Class. Hog Farm _Talk 01:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Grammar changes have been made not just to what you and Hawkeeye7 suggest, the remaining in the Louvre has been cited.

The only thing I have not changed is "invest", I appreciate its a bit clunky / archaic but I think if I recall it is the words the source uses - and its a brief mention in the source it doesnt exactly explain what happened so I think I recall just going with that word to avoid rephrasing and introducing inaccuracy. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Coordinator note

@LeChatiliers Pupper: You haven't responded to the comments above, though you have edited the article quite a bit since they were left. If you don't engage with this review process I will close it as a failed A-class nomination. Nick-D (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I actually just found the comments this week, sorry trying to figure out how to reply now. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment by Dumelow

Not a review but just a note that if you are interested in adding the dates of his appointments to the Legion of Honour he was made chevalier on 25 March 1804, commander on 14 June 1804, grand officer on 17 July 1809 and grand cross on 14 February 1815. The citation is to the third page of this document in Base Léonore. It also notes he was a chevalier of the Order of Saint Louis and a grand cross of the Order of the Reunion - Dumelow (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

thank you I have added then and also date his orders, with a source I already had access to.

Thanks again for the pointer, I will try to feed-forward the importance of dating honours etc into other articles. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Readers often use Wikipedia for a reference in search of such facts, so always incorporate them if you can. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Operation Forager logistics

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Operation Forager logistics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Yes, another article on World War II. I am aware that World War II is unpopular, and that I am clogging up A-class with nominations unlikely to get reviewed any time soon. After completing the articles on the Battle of Tinian and Battle of Guam, I decided to write an article on the logistics of Operation Forager. I believe this is the only article on the logistics of the war in the Pacific Ocean Area. If you think that naval logistics simply involves loading up the ship and setting sail think again! The Pacific covers half the planet and replenishment at sea was the only way to keep the fleet around the Mariana Islands long enough to effect its capture. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

HF

This looks interesting. I will note that the only WWII topic that I have read multiple works on is the Guadalcanal operations. Hog Farm _Talk 01:54, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Well that's something. World War II probably is not covered in school. I think most Americans would have been surprised to see Russia and China celebrating the anniversary of the end of the war with Japan. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:56, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

• "37 troop transports attack transports (APA) and troop transports (AP)" - This is intending to indicate that the 37 transports is the combined count of the APA and AP vessels, but the current phrasing is going to be confusing to most readers. I think another word or two needs added or the first "troop transports" needs removed

  Y Deleted two words. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• "and to permit selective of a balanced cargo " - do you want "selective discharge"?

  Y Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• " an experienced logistics officer on Spruance's staff, " - introduce Admiral Spruance here, as this is the only place where he is referenced

  Y Introduced him earlier. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• "as gunships armed with M2 4.2-inch mortar and 2,500 rounds," - Dyer 1969 p. 893 specifies the number of mortars in the armament was to be six each; I think it's worthwhile to be specific on weapon count here

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• "These were catapulted from the escort carriers on 22 June and landed on Isely Field, where they were based for the rest of the campaign" - is it worth specifying the island this airfield was on, given the number of bases the Allies were using in the South Pacific at this time? This currently isn't made clear until well later in the article

  Y Added "on Saipan". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• "four fighters to USS Bataan;" - another one of those pesky links to an SIA. See also the link for Belleau Wood later in the article

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• "On Saipan, supplies intended for the 2nd Marine Division were often dumped on the 4th Marines Division's beaches" - the source notes that this was reciprocal which I'd recommend including as the current phrasing can be read in a way to imply that the 2nd Marines was getting shorted on supplies which it isn't immediately clear is the case

  Y Added "and vice versa". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• "The tracks were subsequently ripped up and a road built on the right of way. " - I think it's worthwhile noting why the railroad was decommissioned (lack of practicality per Dod) given the efforts that had recently been made to get it into service

  That's what Dod says, but I am not sure I believe him. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• "To keep boats and LVTs on the flighting front there was a great demand for bases that could repair and restock boats in remote ports" - I don't believe I've ever encountered the term "flighting front" before. Is this a typo for "fighting front"?

  Y Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I think this is it from me; I enjoy reading these logistics articles. Hog Farm _Talk 02:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Supporting Hog Farm _Talk 18:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Nick-D

This is a very interesting topic for an article! I'd like to offer the following comments:

• "largest amphibious operation of the Pacific war to that date." - add the rough dates to the lead sentence so readers can understand this reference

  Y Added dates. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• "a fleet of ships" - 'fleet' is a bit confusing in this context given that it can either mean a specific unit or a large number of ships, when both definitions apply here

  Y Both would be correct too, but I changed it to the Fifth Fleet Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• "and two corps" - link corps

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• If one is available, a map showing the movements of the attack forces from their bases would be very useful

  Have not located one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• The article would benefit from a more detailed summary of the operation in the background section to provide context for the later sections. E.g. a para on the operations on each island.

• "The 1st Provisional Marine Brigade had 1,070 men on board ship and 1,800 on the reef and beaches engaged in unloading work. The 77th Infantry Division, with three battalions of shore party engineers and 270 garrison troops with low landing priorities, had 583 soldiers unloading ships and 1,828 working ashore" - was this throughout the battle, or at a point in time?

  Y Mostly throughout, but the Marines used replacements as labourers, who were used to replace casualties in combat units as demand for labor on the beaches declined. Added an explanation of this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• "To provide the needs of units ashore, the Marines formed two new units" - was this before or during the operation?

  Y Beforehand. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• I'd suggest noting in the 'Guam' section that the island continued as an important US military base during the Cold War and to this day. My understanding is that the facilities on the other islands were not often used by the US military after the war. Nick-D (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  Y Lifted the paragraph on post-war Guam from Battle of Guam (1944). The facilities on the Northern Mariana Islands were not often used by the US military after the war, but the base on Tinian was reactivated in 2024. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

1979 Salvadoran coup d'état

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): PizzaKing13 (talk)

1979 Salvadoran coup d'état (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is my fourth A-class nomination. I completely rewrote this page. It was the first article I ever got to GA in 2020 but I didn't like how it was written. I have rewritten it and I believe that the rewrite is far superior than the original version and adheres to the good article criteria better. With the rewrite, I believe that the article can pass an A-class review. The 1979 Salvadoran coup d'état overthrew General Carlos Humberto Romero, ended the 1931–1979 military dictatorship, and started the Salvadoran Civil War. Hopefully this won't be the last Salvadoran coup to be nominated for an A-class review as I am currently working on getting 1931 Salvadoran coup d'état to GA. Also, before it gets brought up, the only general officer rank in the Armed Forces of El Salvador at the time was "General". PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 02:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Support Looks good.

Obligatory typo: "occassions"

🤦‍♂️ this typo must be stuck in my laptop's dictionary since it never tells me its misspelt. Fixed. Also thanks for the quick review. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 23:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• File:El Salvador-CIA WFB Map (2004).png - CIA map - PD - okay

• File:Jimmy Carter with Carlos Humberto Romero President of the Republic of El Salvador. - NARA - 176138 (cropped).tif - National Archives and Records Administration image - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Question: Would an image of Colonels Jaime Abdul Gutiérrez and Adolfo Arnoldo Majano giving the "Proclamation of the Armed Forces" on the day of the coup satisfy all the WP:NFCCP polities? It is the image from La Prensa Gráfica 1992 on page 15. There are no free images related to the coup itself as far as I have been able to find. I just want to make sure while the A-class assessment is ongoing so that I don't unnecessarily upload a non-NFCCP compliant image that's gonna get deleted. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 00:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't know. Masem is usually my expert on our arcane WP:NFCC policy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

You just need to generate a good rational as to why the image itself is needed, but it does seem fair that you could use it along the "historic image" route given the date the image was taken and the people in it. I would generally think this is the type of image that would pass NFC with a decent rationale for its use. Masem (t) 23:17, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the input. I'll add it since there isn't another good image to visualize the coup itself, but I think this one works at doing that since it depicts the coup leaders declaring the government to be deposed. I'll add it shortly. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 02:40, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Support from PM

Lead and infobox

Will come back to this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:10, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

• have a look at MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, which says to avoid flag icons in infoboxes. I occasionally use them where there are multiple commanders from multiple factions, but I can't see anything similar here.

• Removed the flags

• I also suggest you dispense with infobox military conflict and use infobox historical event, which is more suited to a bloodless coup. See Yugoslav coup d'état for an example.

• I prefer to keep infobox military conflict since it keeps all the articles for Salvadoran coups to appear consistent with each other

• the lead is fine. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Background

• suggest "SinceFollowing a military coup in 1931, the Armed Forces of El Salvador (FAES) had ruled"

• Done

• "by allied military officers" allied to whom? Were they a junta with multiple leaders, or was there a single principal leader during this time?

• Martínez was succeeded by Andrés Ignacio Menéndez (1944), Osmín Aguirre y Salinas (1944–1945), and Salvador Castaneda Castro (1945–1948). They were his allies, like a sort of "old guard" within the military. The Major's Coup overthrew Castaneda the day after the legislature allowed him to run for re-election in 1949 and reformist junior officers did not want the "old guard" to stay in power. I added "by a succession of allied military officers".

• I changed it to "by a succession of three military officers who served in Martínez's government" to make it clear they were close to Martínez's government. Menéndez was Vice President and Minister of War; Aguirre was Director of the National Police; and Castaneda was Minister of Government. The latter two had fallen out of grace before Martínez's resignation and were exiled for a time but the leaders of the Major's Coup still saw them as a continuation of the Martínez presidency. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 04:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

• what was Lemus' position in the government? President?

• Yes, added

• how on earth was a military junta considered "social democratic"?

• According to Bernal Ramírez & Quijano de Batres 2009, pp. 184–185, the junta "declared that its work would be limited to ensuring a swift and fair electoral process in which all political forces would participate [...] [in] an attempt to democratize the country" and that many of the junta's supporters "declared themselves sympathizers of Fidel Castro". "The truth is that the Junta of Government was made up of military officers close to former President Óscar Osorio—a reformist who had given his government a social democratic focus—and progressive civilians." Bosch 1999, p. 9 says that "The new junta soon alarmed the private sector and the majority of the officer corps by perceived excessive leftist policies." I can change it to a "leftist" junta rather than a "social democratic" one if you think it's necessary. At minimum, it was certainly not conservative or right-wing like the Civic-Military Directory that overthrew it.

• suggest "The PCN won the next three presidential elections in 1967, 1972, and 1977, the latter two of which were described by political scientist Michael Krennerich as having been subject to "massive electoral fraud""

• Changed

• were they "unable to win" or prevented from winning by the fraud?

• Changed to "prevented"

• "as Ppresident, but the coup attempt failed"

• Fixed

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:10, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Thanks for the comments so far! I've responded to the ones you've left. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 03:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Prelude

• All good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Coup

• "Throughout the day, Romero was ast the Presidential Palace"

• Fixed

• "charged Romero"? Accused him publically, or charged in a legal sense?

• Source doesn't specify, but I believe its legal charges since the next page of LeoGrande & Robbins 1980 mentions how the junta failed to carry out any promised arrests of human rights violators.

• "Romero surrendered after Gutiérrez captured" was there military action required for the "capture", or did he just take control of the barracks?

• McClintock described the capture as the coup officers having "gathered" there while Bosch says that it was "seized". Since the coup had no casualties, I think he just took it without opposition.

• what types of political views did the Revolutionary National Movement espouse?

• "father to the left" of "social democratic" per Haggerty 1990 p. 28, so I'll label it as "leftist"

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

United States interest in regime change

• "Around May 1979, the United States government had began to view thatconsider Romero's removal from power was necessary"

• Changed

• "This position was further boldenedstrengthened"

• changed

• what were the underlying reasons for the US interest? Commercial?

• McClintock says the primary reason was not wanting El Salvador to suffer a leftist revolution like occurred in Nicaragua months prior. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 11:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

• I was thinking a little deeper, more along the lines of seeking to maintain pro-American governments and ensure stability for its economic and strategic interests in the region. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

• I expanded the section talking more about US influence in Central America.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Aftermath

• suggest "justified the coup ason the basis that the armed forces"

• Changed

• suggest "They stated that the coup occurred as"→"They asserted that the coup was necessary as"

• Changed

• suggest "brought a "profound disrepute" to El Salvador and the armed forces"→"brought El Salvador and the armed forces into "profound disrepute"

• Changed

• suggest "establish stability before implementing any reformsdoing so."

• Changed

Legacy

• "It also marksed the beginning"

• Changed

• "Leftist militants thatwho"

• Changed

Note PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 19

05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

• "Some sources state that the 1979 coup d'état started the"

• Fixed typo

That's my review done, nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Thanks for the review! I addressed your remaining points. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 21:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Support by Dumelow

Some thoughts on the prose:

• "government forces killed at least 37 University of El Salvador students in a massacre"

I would adjust the link to "in a massacre" to show the reader it goes to a specific article on that massacre.

• Changed

• "but government forces attacked the protest and between killed 50 to 200 people"

Misplaced word order here

• Fixed

• "The militant groups and mass organizations also experienced an increase in membership and new groups"

Consider if this could be expressed in the active voice, eg. "The militant groups and mass organizations increased their membership"?

• Changed

• "Plots to overthrow Romero began to form around March and May 1979 as social cohesion continued to collapse"

"around March and May 1979" reads a bit strange to me, could it be "from March 1979"?

• Changed

• Colonel is currently linked at the fifth mention of the rank, General officer is linked at the third or fourth mention of "general", "Lieutenant Colonel" is not currently linked

• Changed the link positions

• "The United States did not want a similar revolution to occur in El Salvador as it weaken American influence in the region"

Missing word here

• It looks fine on the page to me

Yes is OK now, it was fixed by Matarisvan - 18:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• "Frank J. Devine, the US ambassador to El Salvador, viewed the left's militancy and the Salvadoran military's weakness as factors to allowing such a revolution in El Salvador."

"factors to allowing" reads wrong to me, but perhaps it is correct in American English?

• I thought it was fine so it's probably language variance

• "On 11 September 1979, Vaky gave a speech to the United States House of Representatives calling for change in Central America and warned that El Salvador was the most likely to collapse"

perhaps "the nation in the region most likely to collapse"? or similar

• Changed

• "In "Proclamation of the Armed Forces" ("Proclama de la Fuerza Armanda"), Majano and Gutiérrez justified the coup on the basis that the armed forces had a "right to insurrection"."

Could probably use a clarification on what this was, a document or speech?

• I don't see it explicitly stated anywhere, but LPG's source formats the proclamation as a document on page 15, and image's caption on that page says that Majano and Gutiérrez read out the proclamation.

• "The JRG did hold a promised presidential election in 1982"

Again, I would consider linking this as "a promised presidential election in 1982" to make it clear it goes to a specific article

• Changed

Dumelow, your response to PizzaKing13's replies? Any further comments? Matarisvan (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Matarisvan, I don't see any replies? The second level indent comments above are mine to the text quoted in the first level bullet point - Dumelow (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Dumelow, my bad, I thought those were PizzaKing13's replies and not your comments. Matarisvan (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Dumelow: Thanks for reviewing this! I've listed my responses. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 02:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Support "killed between 50 to 200 people" reads wrong to me, but perhaps is right in American English? "killed between 50 and 200 people" or "killed 50 to 200 people" would be correct to me at least (British English) - Dumelow (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Source review

All sources are published by reliable publishers and authors, and the source formatting is alright. I did not conduct spot checks because the author is known to me through the work done on the Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez article. I think the source review passes. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 02:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

2002 Marib airstrike

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hsnkn (talk)

2002 Marib airstrike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've recently rewritten this article with more academic quality sources to accurately reflect its significance. Included now is a much better.. everything, but particularly its background section, a cleaned up reactions section discussing its actual impact in Yemeni politics, the legal implications it drew (domestically and internationally) and its impact in the grander scheme of the war on terror.

Support by Nick-D

This isn't a topic I'm at all familiar with, but it's great to see a high quality article on it. The article is interesting and very confidently written. I'd like to offer the following comments:

• "the FBI became even more paranoid of the locals" - "paranoid" seems a bit strong given the article goes onto note a plot to blow up the US embassy the agents were presumably using as a base

  Y Changed to "cautious" for a more neutral tone. Hsnkn (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

• The Background section could be illustrated by a photo of the USS Cole bombing and the Abu Ali al-Harithi section a photo of the meeting between Bush and Saleh (should one be available)

  I added a picture of the Cole, but I couldn't find any US government-provided photos of the Bush and Saleh meeting. I'll try to look through some old State Department websites, but if I don't find anything I can settle on licensing a photo. Hsnkn (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  Y Added a picture of Saleh and Rumsfeld at the Pentagon a day earlier as a replacement. Hsnkn (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• "Trojan satellite stationed at Camp Doha, Kuwait" - this is confusing given that satellites are in orbit: do you mean that US Army analysts in Kuwait intercepted the signal using intelligence from a satellite?

  Y Changed to "antenna system" as described in the source. Hsnkn (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

• "by comparing the strike to Operation Infinite Reach" - I'd suggest noting what this operation was. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

  Y Done, while further elaborating on Powell's point. Hsnkn (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated response! (was on vacation.) Hsnkn (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Those changes look great, and I'm very pleased to support this nomination Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Support from PM

Great work, well done on following up on my earlier comments.

Lead and infobox

• Have a look at MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, unless they convey information in addition to the text. In this case, I don't consider they do. An example of where they might be useful is when an campaign or large operation is a combined one and the different allied commanders could be indicated by having their different flags. I've done that myself, but I don't think it is justified here.

  Y Done.

• it isn't clear why De Long (the theatre commander) who gave permission, is in the infobox, but Saleh isn't, when the clearance for the strike was obtained from both. Personally, I think it was a CIA mission using a CIA aircraft, and the only real commander was George Tenet.

  Y Done.

• state in the first sentence that the MQ-1 is a "remotely piloted aircraft or drone"

  Y Moved MQ-1 naming to second paragraph as it covers technical information.

• suggest "in the 2000 USS Cole bombing"

  Y Done.

• "A cover-up story"→"A cover story"

  Y Done.

• suggest "The announcement elicited fury from the Yemeni public"

  Y Done.

• was the ban on drones only, or on remotely piloted aircraft as well? Or is drone being used here in a generic sense?

  Y The ban applied specifically to armed drones. Reconnaissance drones were permitted by Yemen in 2009, but armed drone began launching strikes in 2011. Corrected this in the lead and Assessment section.

• link extrajudicial killing

  Y Done.

• link international law

  Y Done.

• "including that from"

  Y Done.

• link enemy combatant

  Y Done.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Background

• suggest "Some exceptions werehad been permitted since then:"

  Y Done.

• link MQ-1 Predator (suggest adding "remotely piloted aircraft")

  Y Done.

• say who Osama bin Laden was

  Y Done.

• suggest "gave the CIA the authority to independently pursue and kill al-Qaeda members or other terrorists on its list of high-value targets wherever they were located."

  Y Done.

• suggest "Other legislatureauthorisations, including the Congressional resolution... "

  Y Done.

• al-Queda and Taliban leaders in Afghanistan?

  Y Now "within the country".

• suggest adding that USS Cole is a guided missile destroyer

  Y Done.

• complacent or complicit?

  Y Complicit.

• say what Sanaa is

  Y Done.

• "Yemen had begaun"

  Y Done.

• "Several sets of demands were given backmade by the US?"

  Y Done.

• "captured by the countryYemen"

  Y Done.

• link Abu Ali al-Harithi

  Y Done.

• "Harithi was also featured on"

  Y Done.

• link Marib Governorate

  Y Done.

• "On December 18, 2001, Yemeni Republican Guard forces..."

  Y Done.

• "the two"? Who was the other one?

  Y Now "Harithi and his associates".

• "CENTCOM"→"United States Central Command (CENTCOM)"

  Y Done.

• "which "regained the initiative" in the search for Harithi"?

  Y Done.

• "werewas ever in use"

  Y Done.

• "local Bedouins to navigate for them"

  Y Done.

• suggest "with fellow Lackawanna Six member, Jaber Elbaneh."

  Y As far as I can tell, Elbaneh is not considered a member of the Lackawanna Six as he wasn't among the six who were arrested in the US. I've instead referred to him as an "associate" as he trained alongside them.

• "to the countryYemen later in the month"

  Y Done.

• if Derwish had been charged, had he been arrested and released on bail and skipped, or was this a sealed indictment? It would be worth clarifying this in the article.

  Y This aricle states that he was removed from the indictment and was not included among the six charged. I've updated the article to reflect this better.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:40, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Airstrike

• TROJAN is a SIGINT collection and dissemination network, so I would state that. I believe it is always fully capitalised.

  Y Done.

• "both responded to the signal"?

  Y Done.

• link Djibouti, few will know where it is, and perhaps state it is southwest of Yemen across the Gulf of Aden

  Y Done.

• "shared his details about the vehiclethe information"

  Y Done.

• "The drone was monitoring Harithi as he left, and followed his vehicle."

  Y Done.

• link George Tenet

  Y Done.

• "CENTCOM deputy commander Lieutenant General Michael DeLong..."

  Y Done.

• "UAV room" needs to be in full before using the initialisation UAV

  Y Done.

• Up to "An NSA analyst tapping into the call was unfamiliar with the person initially speaking on the phone" there has been no mention of a continuing phone call. Is this the same call that the TROJAN system picked up?

  Y Done.

• "additional DNA samples"

  Y Done.

• "Harithi was confirmed by the US to be dead through this process"→"This process confirmed that Harithi was one of those killed."
• "through"

  Y Done.

• "Long Island-based newspaper Newsday was the first publication to report that Ahmed Hijazi was an American citizen on November 7."→"On November 7, the Long Island-based newspaper Newsday was the first publication to report that Ahmed Hijazi was an American citizen."

  Y Done.

• suggest "At the time, authorities were reported to have been investigating whether Ahmed Hijazi was in fact Derwish, as the name was an alias he had been identified as using during the Lackawanna Six case."

  Y Done.

• "a woman believed to be a relative of Derwish"

  Y Done.

• "and had used Ahmed Hijazi as a pseudonym"

  Y Done.

• "as legitimate because they were associating with him"

  Y Done.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:35, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Legality

• who is Goldman? Needs to be introduced here.

  Y Done.

• suggest "President emeritus of the International Human Rights Law Institute at DePaul University, M. Cherif Bassiouni,..."

  Y Done.

• suggest "but removed it at Hull's request after Bush..."

  Y Done.

• contradict→"breach Derwish's rights under the American constitution"

  Y Done.

• Legal Analyst→legal analyst

  Y Done.

• "and the target as an enemy combatant"

  Y Done.

• suggest "factoring in the lack of law enforcement that might apprehend him in the ungoverned region"

  Y Done.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:42, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Assessment

• say who Micah Zenko is

  Y Done.

• "However, although some signals intelligence reports were received indicating" that al-Qaeda was initially shocked by the strike"

  Y Done.

• "and had helped"

  Y Done.

• "and its success after the fact"

  Y Done.

• "Retrospectively, cCommentators..." they can hardly have predicted it, so "retrospectively" is redundant

  Y Done.

• suggest "as a centralkey means"

  Y Done.

• suggest "as a strategy into a campaign"

  Y Done.

• "he ban was maintained by Saleh out of spite for as long as Bush remained in office." "out of spite" seems over-the-top and POV, suggest deleting it

  Y Done.

• "Learning from the Wolfowitz leak"

  Y Done.

• administration's→administrations

  Y Done.

• "their later drone campaigns"

  Y Done.

• suggest "official discussion of the subject would not occur until 2013."

  Y Done.

OK, that's it for the prose review. If no-one steps up for a source review, let me know and I'll take a look. Well done on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

Looks good to me. Some comments on minor to prove I read through it:

• "serveilled" should be "surveyed"
• There's a stray greater than sign instead of a full stop after "Tenet gave permission to fire"
• "shorty after the strike" should be "shortly after"
• Is "dischargement" really a word?
• "the nations' security security" - duplicate word

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Addressed all the listed issues. Hsnkn (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Source review

Hi Hsnkn, my apologies from us folks at WPMH because you had to wait 2 months for another review after the one by PM67. My comments on the source formatting and reliability:

• Can you move the newspaper articles to the bibliography under a new "Articles" subsection, and put the current biblio titles into a "Books" subsection? This would declutter the references section and create a consistent citation style. If it's too much work, I can do it for you.
• In the entire biblio, the only author link is to Edmund Hull. To maintain consistency, you can either remove this single link or add the links for all authors who have a Wiki page. If so, in the biblio and refs, link to the following authors: Nora Boustany, Patrick Tyler, Bader Ben Hirsi, Seymour Hersh, James Bamford, Lowell Bergman, John Kifner, Matthew Cooper (American journalist), Elaine Shannon, James Risen, David E. Sanger, David Axe, Doyle McManus, Walter Pincus, Brian Whitaker, Duncan Campbell (journalist, born 1952), James Sandler, Dana Priest, Josh Meyer, David Ensor (journalist), Toby Harnden, Micah Zenko, Jeremy Scahill, Scott Shane and Hugh Gusterson.
• In the biblio, if a page range specified constitutes a full chapter, I would recommend adding the chapter titles here.
• I have added archive URLs to the news articles lacking one, because the IABot has a huge backlog right now.

All the sources cited are published by reliable publications. I will do spot checks after the above comments are done. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Apologies @Matarisvan for the late reply, I spent a few days finishing up some loose ends in article content and cleanup. As for the first point, I unfortunately don't how to do this, but I would gladly give it a shot if you can link to any guides to it. I'm pretty sure I now linked every author possible, and as for page ranges I've considered just removing them entirely as I draw from many different sections of most sources. Also thank you for the url archiving. Hsnkn (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Hsnkn, I converted the standalone refs to sfn and removed the page ranges as you wanted. I will do spot checks tomorrow and then the source review can be concluded. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Matarisvan Hows the spot check going? Hsnkn (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Defense.gov News Photo 001015-N-0000X-003.jpg - dead source link
• File:MQ-1 Predator.jpg - dead source link

All other images check out. Parsecboy (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I've retrieved the links for them so I assume they'll be appropriate now? Hsnkn (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Guam (1944)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Battle of Guam (1944) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Yes, another article on World War II. It's ineligible for DYK, so I am bringing it straight here. I am aware that World War II is unpopular, and that I am clogging up A-class with nominations unlikely to get reviewed any time soon. Also that after the Battle of Tinian, I said I would not do this one, but wound up improving it anyway after reading a book on the subject. Oddly, given that Guam was/is US territory, this battle is not nearly as well covered as Saipan in the literature. After Saipan, it was the next most costly battle in the Pacific War at the time it was fought, but the death toll was soon eclipsed by Palau, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D

I've always thought this was an interesting battle, and it's good to see a very high quality article on it. I'd like to offer the following comments:

• The first para of the lead is just excellent
• The lead should note the presence of the 77th Infantry Division

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• The second half of the last para of the Geography section feels out of place. This also doesn't cover the Japanese invasion of the island in 1941, which involved a small amount of fighting

  Y Added a bit about the 1941 battle. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• The 'Strategy' section would benefit from a map showing the broader campaign this formed part of

  What do you think of File:Map of Pacific Theater of World War II.png?

• This section would also benefit from material on Japan's strategy for defending the islands

  Y Added a paragraph about this

• "This deprived the III Amphibious Force of its reserve, it meant that it now became the reserve for the forces on Saipan" - this is a bit unclear: did III Corps become the reserve for Saipan?

  Y Yes, it did. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• "This left the unit with a doctor" - should this be "This left the unit without a doctor"?

  Y Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• Link 306th Infantry on its first mention

  It is already linked in the final paragraph of "The landing is postponed" section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• "By morning, 26,000 rounds had been fired" - artillery rounds? (given the para notes also the use of machine guns)

  Y Added "artillery" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• "which had returned to Guam in preparation for the invasion of Japan" - I'd suggest adding where they had returned from

  Y Iwo Jima and Okinawa respectively. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• Why was Turnage relieved of command?

  Y Added a bit more about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC) Support My comments are now addressed - great work. Nick-D (talk) 06:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

HF

I'll review this, hopefully starting this week. I should be considered a non-expert review for this. Hog Farm _Talk 02:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

• "The highest peak was Mount Lamlam near the south west coast" - was? Is this no longer the case?

  Y It still is. Changed to "is". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

• " In April, the submarine USS Greenling took a series of oblique images of the beaches" - I'm assuming you intended to link directly to USS Greenling (SS-213) rather than to the SIA?

  Y Aaargggh. The software detects disambiguation but to SIA. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

• Likewise, I assume that the link to USS Trout should be going to USS Trout (SS-202)

  Y Likewise corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

• Is it worth glossing what sort of unit a Keibitai was?

  Y Added a gloss template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

• "In total, there were about 18,500 Japanese troops defending Guam" - I don't know that it is necessary to state this twice in the same section

  Y Deleted the first occurrence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

• " "A Guide to the War in the Pacific: Outbreak of the War in the Pacific". npshistory.com. Retrieved 16 August 2025." - I believe this is an independent compilation of NPS publication information, rather than an actual NPS site, so I would recommend swapping that out before FAC

  Y Swapped with an NPS source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

More to follow. Hog Farm _Talk 02:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

• "Over the following days, the battleships USS New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Idaho, Colorado, California and Tennessee joined in." - the ship links all go to SIA pages; I suspect pretty much all of the links to ships need to be checked for this issue as the USN frequently reuses ship names, so there will be a high proportion of SIA/dabs for US ship names

  Y Checked them all. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:59, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• "The three teams then began the systematic demolition of the beach obstacles using tetrytol explosives. Some 300 obstacles were removed from the Agat beaches, along with some coral pinnacles blocking a natural channel through the reef to White Beach 1." - was there not a Japanese response to all of this?

  One of them did get shot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:59, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• "assisted by tanks of Company C, 3rd Tank Battalion, that fire directly into the entrances of caves," - is the present tense here an error?

  Y Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:59, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• "The escort carriers then USS Sangamon and Suwannee then each launched two observation aircraft from VMO-1" - Am I correct in assuming that the first "then" should not be there?

  Y Yes. Deleted stray word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Supporting as a non-expert review. Hog Farm _Talk 23:35, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi Hawkeye7, my comments:

• Link Agana and Apra Harbor in the lead as linked in the body?

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• Change all instances of "men" to "soldiers", "troops" etc. per WP:GNL?

  Y I have removed most of the instances, leaving those in quotations and a couple of special cases. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• What is the correct spelling, Fronte Plateau or Fonte Plateau? We have used both in the article.

  Y Fonte. Corrected the single misspelling. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• Consider moving the following from standalone refs to the bibliography: Liston & Tuggle 2024, Morton 1959, Wilson 2022, Williams 2019?

  The article style is for only the books in the bibliography. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• In the biblio, link the following: James MacGregor Burns?

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

This is all on the prose review. Image review to come soon. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Support on prose review. Matarisvan (talk) 09:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Source review

• How reliable are Stackpole Books and Transaction Publishers?

  Stackpole Books is a well-known publisher. Nick-D comments on them at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 153#No Gun Ri: A Military History of the Korean War Incident. Here were have a well-known and respected author. I found reviews of his Guam:

  • Crawley, Skip (July 2025). "Guam: The Battle for an American Island in World War II". Leatherneck. Vol. 108, no. 7. pp. 64–65. Retrieved 27 November 2025.
  • Ditzler, Joseph (13 February 2025). "Pacific War author's 'Guam,' due in March, fills a void". Stars and Stripes. Retrieved 27 November 2025.

  Transaction Publishers was a New Jersey–based publishing house that specialized in social science books and journals. It was sold to Taylor & Francis in 2016 and merged with its Routledge imprint. This is a reliable academic imprint. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• Does Gailey 1988 not have any new information to add in this article? I suspect you might be asked to include it at FAC. As you say this battle has not been covered by modern histories, including a non-primary source like this one should be beneficial.

  I have access to the book but have not checked. I can have a look through it. I was looking for works published in this century. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Hawkeye7, Hallas and Transaction look all right. Let me know if or when you incorporate Gailey 1988. In the meantime, I will do the image review. Matarisvan (talk) 09:30, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Spot checks to come soon. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• There are some significant WP:SANDWICHing issues (and I'm looking at the article on a fairly small laptop display - it would be far worse on my desktop).

  I viewed the article while not logged on in standard width, and there was no sandwiching. Now that article width is fixed, it should look the same on your desktop and laptop. I might fiddle with the galleries. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Here is what I see on my desktop. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Hmmm. I set the text to small and the aspect to wide but it still doesn't look like yours. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• File:440721-O-BC209-003 Men of the pack Howitzer Battalion aboard an LST, study a relief map of the area on Guam on which they are to land.jpg - seems to be a dead link

  It loaded okay for me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Everything else looks to be in order. Parsecboy (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Current reassessments

Please add new requests below this line