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 Taginae

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): A.Cython (talk)

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

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it was one of the decisive battles that contributed to the end of the Gothic War (535–554) and leading to the death of Gothic King Totila, who was able to equalize even the infamous general Belisarius. The battle has also sparked a debate in Roman military history field over whether it was first medieval "pike and bow" battle centuries before Battle of Crécy or whether it was part of standard Roman military tactics. Irrespective of this, the battle is often picked by historians to discuss late Roman military tactics, e.g., John Haldon picks this battle (and two more) in his book out of all battles during Justinian's reign. The article passed GA last May by Noleander and DYK recently. I am looking forward to your comments to elevate it to A-class and hopefully to FA. Thank you in advance. A.Cython(talk) 17:34, 18 July 2026 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

HMS Duke of York (17)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

HMS Duke of York (17) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It's been more than a few years since any of my articles have graced this page, but I've totally reworked this article with a lot more detail on both its description and activities. I fully believe that it meets the A-class criteria and, hopefully, even the FA criteria which is where this will eventually be headed. I hope reviewers will look for any infelicities of prose and unexplained jargon that might be present.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D

It's good to see this here. I'd like to offer the following comments:

• "built for the Royal Navy (RN) shortly before the Second World War. Completed in November 1941" - this seems contradictory
• The material on the Battle of the North Cape in the lead seems a bit over-complex in this context, and seems to play down the role the battleship played: the sources I've seen note that she was the key factor in the British victory due to her superior radar and the accuracy of her gunnery, especially the hit that slowed Scharnhorst. The section on the battle is in line with this.
• "the Washington Naval Treaty was drawn up in 1922" - suggest noting that it was signed or similar in that year, rather than drafted
• "Her crew numbered 84 officers and 1,530 ratings as a squadron flagship and 104 officers and 1,578 ratings as a fleet flagship" - when was this? I presume that the ship's crew increased over the war as was common with Allied capital ships.
  • Burt doesn't give a date, but it's probably as of completion as the numbers roughly match Prince of Wales as of December '41.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
• "On 1 March, she provided close escort for Convoy PQ 12" - note that this was one of the Arctic convoys travelling to the USSR, as context is lacking at present
• "it was necessary for the Royal Navy to provide heavy escorts for convoys between Britain and Russia" - I'd suggest tweaking the wording here, as the capital ship force was always a somewhat distant covering force rather than an escort per-se
• "One of these was sighted" - this implies that a heavy escort was spotted by the Germans, when I think that you mean a convoy was spotted
• "Following Scharnhorst's sinking, and the retreat of most of the other German heavy units from Norway, the need to maintain powerful forces in British home waters was diminished" - this seems over-simplified given that Tirpitz remained afloat in Norway (albeit under repair until April 1944) and required a very substantial force to be retained until she was sunk. In line with this, the next para notes that two battleships were needed to protect a convoy and that this battleship took part in several major carrier operations targeting Tirpitz.
• "Garden Island Naval Precinct" - this is a modern name that I don't think was in use at the time. I'd suggest simplifying it to just "Garden Island in Sydney" or similar.
• Are any photos of the ship after the war available to illustrate the final section?
• Were any significant items/parts of the ship preserved? There's a photo of the ship's bell on Commons (File:Lenana duke of york bell.png) which the Lenana School article says is preserved there - in Narobi, quite interestingly. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
  • @Sturmvogel 66: Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your very helpful review. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Support Those changes look good. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Andrew Hastie

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): TarnishedPath (talk)

Andrew Hastie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the criteria. The article has recently been brought to WP:GA status by myself. Hastie is a veteran of the war in Afghanistan where he was a captain in Australia's SASR. He is currently a promenant politician in Australia and is a potential future leader of the Australian Liberal Party. Any and all comments welcome! Thanks TarnishedPath^talk 00:04, 26 June 2026 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Simón Bolívar

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Wikipedian12512 (talk)

Simón Bolívar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... It passed a GA already, and I checked it through the criteria. Thanks! _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 22:18, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Comments by A.Cython

This is an interesting article and I did not know much about it, so my comments would be on prose and MoS.

• South American republics, and distanced from them because → South American republics and distanced himself from them because (remove comma and add "himself")
• in popular culture remove "in"
• and in October boarded add commas before "in" and after "October"
• Beginning in November 1811, Royalist forces began pushing back the Republicans → "In November 1811, Royalist forces began pushing the Republicans back from the north and east."
• outlining what he believed to be the causes of the Venezuelan republic's defeat and his political program. → outlining the causes of the Venezuelan Republic's defeat and his political program.
• Bolívar was made the → Bolívar became
• powerbase → power base
• isolated, and disillusioned remove comma
• Peru the Colombian add comma after "Peru"
• Bolívar arrived, however, and he I do not follow... either remove "however" or the "and"
• Over 1829, → In 1829,
• its cathedral → the cathedral or the city's cathedral
• for abolishment of slavery → for the abolition of slavery
• Latin America, to remove comma
• in overthrowing monarchy → of overthrowing the monarchies
• parties respectively. add comma after "parties"
• "It was the pardo Piar who needed to be reined in... he had grown ever more stubborn and unmanageable, ignoring Bolívar's appeals and instructions" [406] "Division was unacceptable. Race, though it had plagued the Americas through three hundred years of difficult history, was no longer a justifiable reason for discord." [406] I think this is a bit WP:QUOTEFARM, particularly in the frequent use of quotes in the rest of the article.
• Birthplace of Simon Bolivar in Caracas. remove "."
• had limits[390]. → had limits.[390]
  • December 1825[366].
  • the Liberator[353].
• in September.[386]. the last "." has to go A.Cython(talk) 21:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Natal Native Pioneer Corps

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Dumelow (talk)

Natal Native Pioneer Corps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A short-lived unit of the British Colony of Natal during the 1879 Anglo-Zulu War that had a relatively interesting career serving across Zululand during both invasions. The article made GA a few months back and I've since added a little more from a new source and is now as comprehensive as can be - Dumelow (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I’ll start working on this thingy. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 22:26, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

A1: Passes.

A2: Unless there’s something I really, really missed when learning about this, it passes.

A3: A few more lower level headings would be nice, if you could manage it. The lead could be reworked; I think it wants another paragraph in there.

A4: I haven’t fully read the MOS, but I think it passes here.

A5: “ The burning of Ulundi. Two black men are depicted in the foreground wearing red coats.” should be reworked, as the first “sentence” is missing a predicate. The copyrights are okay. “ The fort at Eshowe. Natal Native Contingent and white Natal mounted volunteers in the foreground.” Again, missing two predicates. You should probably go over those and redo the captions.

Support once A3 and A5 are met, or once I receive a satisfactory rebuttal as to why not. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 22:37, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedian12512, many thanks for reviewing this. I've expanded the lead to include detail on the deployment of each company and added some sub-sections to the company sections. I've also reworded some of the captions. Let me know your thoughts - Dumelow (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Support. Thanks! _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 19:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Source review - pass

I will do the source review, I will need a few days. A.Cython(talk) 23:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Is "P.S. Thomson" name: Paul Singer Thompson?

It is yes, changed - Dumelow (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• #11 Y though it gives twenty shillings a month
  • apologies for my ignorance, but is the conversion twenty shillings to one pound always fixed, i.e., can we consider this universal?

Yes, it has been 12 pence to the shilling and 20 shillings to the pound since the start of the early modern period. Ive used the conversion to one pound as more recognisable to a modern audience - Dumelow (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• • Thompson also mentions the salary from mounted men, is this relevant?

No, there were no mounted black men in the pioneers. This section from p17 in Thompson refers to the native contingent which did have a mounted component, on p18 he notes "The pioneers received the same pay, arms and rations as the other men on foot" - Dumelow (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• #12 Y
• #18 Y also, is make fords in the streams which would sustain the advance of the column important?

Added - Dumelow (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• #28 Y
• #34 Y
• #48 Y
• #53 Y also, is The 1st and 3rd Battalions were consolidated as the 1st Battalion, under Captain Cherry, and remained at Fort Cherry until September 24th important? A.Cython(talk) 22:31, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't have my copy of Thompson to hand right now, but will be referring to the NNC (which was organised into battalions) rather than the pioneers - Dumelow (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Source-wise it passes. I have another minor observation regarding reading flow, for each section dedicated to a company has its first two paragraphs starting as No. X Company ..., where X is the company number. Is there a particular reason? A.Cython(talk) 21:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Comments Support by Zawed

I have taken a look at this, making some minor CE edits as I went along. Some comments:

• More an opinion rather than something I am asking you to action, but it seems excessive detail to mention uniform details in the lead

I can remove but it leaves the first paragraph a bit light.

• 2nd para of lead: ...for 10 weeks, during the second.... I think that comma should be the start of a new sentence

Split and expanded the second sentence a little

• 2nd para of lead: ...join the first invasion, it was posted.... Suggest either a semi-colon instead of the comma, or the start of a new sentence "Instead, it was posted...."

• This one has been missed. Zawed (talk) 09:20, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I've gone with a semi-colon - Dumelow (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Formation: ...long-established isiBhalo levy system.... Is there a translation for isiBhalo?

Yeah, but it's quite obscure. I've added a footnote with some more details.

• Formation: 2nd para - the smaller numbers are mixture of numerals and words, make consistent?

Good spot, done

• Formation: I assume no link for Fort Napier?

No, I'm hoping to get around to filling in some of the Zulu war forts at some point so have red-linked it for now

• No. 1 Company, Formation and first invasion: ...of the amaNgangoma from...: I assume amaNgangoma is the tribe name, should it (and any other tribe names) be expressed in italics? Also suggest "amaNgangoma tribe"

They are tribes or sub-sets of tribes, "ama" means "people" so tribe would technically be superfluous, I will check later on hwo the source deals with this. I did have them in italics originally but decided against it as, eg. "Zulu" isn't in italics, though obviously much more well-known, happy to switch back if that's preferred.

No, this is fine. Zawed (talk) 09:20, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• No. 2 Company, Siege of Eshowe and second invasion: raid the Zulu homestead of eSiqwakeni: context for eSiqwakeni? Presumably a local chief?

Sorry, it's the name of the homestead. I've reworded it as "eSiqwakeni Zulu homestead", which I think avoids this ambiguity.

• No. 2 Company, Siege of Eshowe and second invasion: In the 2nd para, the guff about the heliograph, particularly the improvement work by Beddoes, seems quite tangential to the topic; the key point is that Chelmsford was coming to relieve Eshowe.

Have dropped this back to a footnote if that works

That's about it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and edits Zawed, which I agree with. I've made some changes and responses above, will come back on the tribal names point - Dumelow (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I've provided an additional paragraph on the origin of the Colony of Natal and its chiefdoms which I think provided useful context, I didn't italicise the chiefdom names as MOS:BADITALICS cautions against it for proper names (though I am not overly familiar with this part of the MOS), I have no real personal preference on it - Dumelow (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

This is looking pretty good, just one item not actioned as noted above. Will be supporting once that one has been done. Zawed (talk) 09:20, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

THanks for the reminder, have fixed this per above - Dumelow (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

All good, have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments by Pendright

Lead

• The pioneers were raised by levy from the black population of the Colony of Natal in November 1878 to provide a force of men to carry out engineering tasks during the British invasion of Zululand.

• suggest -> The pioneers were raised by levy from the black population of the Colony of Natal in November 1878; they provided a force to carry out engineering tasks during the British invasion of Zululand.
• Instead of enginering, consider construction and maintenence tasks, which might be more approprite terms in the circumstances.

Amended, and I linked to military engineering which best describes their role.

• They were formed into three companies of around 100 men and issued with old British Army jackets, white short trousers and a blue pillbox hat.

Why is a blue pillbox hat not hats?

Pluralised now

• The non-commissioned officers of the unit were armed with a rifle, [and] the other men were issued only with tools.

Suggest the above changes

Done

• No. 1 Company was assigned to Lord Chelmsford's No. 2 Column, the principal British force during the first invasion of Zululand and a small detachment fought at the Isandlwana.

• Why is Chelmsford not referred to by his military rank?
• Why the Isandlwana?

Added and linked rank. Changed to "the Battle of Isandlwana"

• After this defeat, the company joined Evelyn Wood's Flying Column for the second invasion and participated in the Battle of Ulundi, the final pitched battle of the war that ended in British victory.

• Identify Evelyn Wood by rank
• in a British victory

Added and linked rank, added "a"

• No. 2 Company was assigned to the Right Column during the first invasion and fought at the Battle of Inyezane before being beseiged at Eshowe for 10 weeks.

besieged -> sp?

Yep, corrected typo

• No. 3 Company was assigned to Anthony Durnford's No. 3 Column but did not join the first invasion, it was posted to an important river crossing to guard against a Zulu counter-invasion of Natal

rank of Durnford?

Added

• The Natal Pioneers worked throughout the war to improve tracks used by the British logistics train, particularly at river crossings; they also constructed forts and field entrenchments.

Suggest: The Natal Pioneers improved tracks throughout the war for the British logistics train, particularly at river crossings; they also constructed forts and field renchments.

Changeda s suggested

• During the Siege of Eshowe No. 2 Company distinguished itself in scouting, foraging and raiding.

Add a comma after Eshowe

Added

• In the closing stages of the war in August, No. 1 Company protested at being kept on longer than the other black Natal levies.

kept on duty?

Went with "kept on active service" as "kept on duty" made it sound like they were just working longer hours

• The Natal Native Pioneer Corps was finally disbanded in October 1879

What does finally add to the meaning of the sentence?

Removed

Background

• The Colony of Natal had been established by the British in 1843 as a development of the Cape Colony to the south, following the migration of white Boer settlers to the area.

• Some on-line sources suggest that the Colony of Natal had been established by the British in 1843 as a district dependency of the Cape Colony...?
• Why white Boer settlers when the word Boer idntifies them as white?

Laband (2009) has: "On 5 July 1842, the volksraad of the Republic of Natalia submitted to British authority, though a period of shared rule continued until October 1845. The “District of Port Natal” was annexed as a British dependency on 12 May 1843. On 31 May 1844, the district was annexed to the Cape Colony, being constituted on 30 April 1845 as a separate administrative district. The first lieutenant-governor of Natal, appointed by the governor of the Cape, took the oath of office on 12 December 1845. The Royal Charter of 15 July 1856 established Natal as a separate British colony."

I've tried to rewrite this to cover the main points, also eliminates the redundancy you identified

• The colony bordered the Zulu Kingdom (commonly known as Zululand) and the relative security provided by British oversight made it a haven for fugitives escaping from Zulu raids.[1]

Suggest changing haven to refuge, escaping to fleeing, and raids to conflicts?

Done

• Black emigrants from Zululand remained largely in their chiefdoms (known in the Bantu languages by the prefix "ama")[2] which were allocated territory within the colony, but these were overcrowded and located on the least valuable land.[3]

Suggest - the least desirable land?

Good idea, done

• In the late 1870s the British High Commissioner for Southern Africa, Sir Henry Bartle Frere, attempted to form a confederation of British possessions in the region.

Add a comma after 1870s -> it's an intoductory phrase

Done

• Chelmsford's plan called for an advance by five columns of troops, though manpower shortages required him to reduce this to three.

In B/E, as I undertstand it, though and although are interchangeable, however, thoguh is likely to be used in conmvesation while although used more in formal writing.

I think either can be used but although does sound more formal to me as a native speaker, switched both instances in the article

• The Right Column (formerly No. 1 Column) under Charles Pearson was to advance on the eastern coast, the Left Column (formerly No. 4 Column) under Evelyn Wood was to launch a feint on the west flank and Chelmsford's Centre Column (comprising the combined Nos. 2 & 3 Columns) was to strike for the Zulu capital at Ulundi.

• Why aren't the two military commanders referred to by rank?
• Add a comma after west flank
• advance vs. strike for?

Ranks and comma added. Switched to "advance on" instead of "strike for"

• The former No. 5 Column under Hugh Rowlands was assigned to the recently-annexed Transvaal Colony to defend its border with Zululand.[3]

Hugh Rowlands -> rank?

Added

• There were no roads in Zululand and the existing tracks were ill-formed and only used occasionally by traders; they turned to quagmires in the rain and were occasionally broken by steep-sided dongas (dry river beds).

Suggest: There were no roads in Zululand and the existing unimproved paths were used only by traders; they turned to quagmires in the rain and were occasionally broken by steep-sided dongas (dry river beds).

@Dumelow: Pause - more to follow! Pendright (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Reworded as suggested. Thanks so much for looking at this, some excellent points made. I think I have responded to everything so far - Dumelow (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses - Pendright (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2026

(UTC)

@Dumelow: While I originally intended to conduct a full review of this nomination, changing circumstances mean I will only be able to review the Lead and Background sections. Because of this, I must abstain from offering an opinion on the nomination itself. Pendright (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for your comments on these sections, they have been very helpful. Hope all is well - Dumelow (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Nick-D

I'd like to offer the following comments:

• "Officers were supplied by the government of Natal" - were they whites only?

Yes, added "white" before "officers" - Dumelow (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• It would be interesting to include material on whether raising black labour forces to support white troops was standard practice for the British Army across the Empire at this time, or whether raising this unit was an unusual practice

I've not found any coverage of this. I wrote Canton Coolie Corps about an earlier Asian unarmed unit. There was certainly reluctance from the white settlers of Natal to arm the black levies and I have added a footnote discussing this, there is already mention in the article of a similar black Natal unit raised in 1873. Elsewhere in southern Africa black levies such as the Mfengu were raised and armed in earlier decades for service in the Cape Frontier Wars - Dumelow (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• It's interesting that the unit was almost immediately doing somewhat complex tasks like quickly building corduroy roads. Am I right in thinking that this would reflect its members having pre-existing building skills? Nick-D (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The sources don't discuss this but I suspect some of the men may have had previous road-building experience under the isiBhalo system - Dumelow (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Support Those changes look good. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• File:The burning of Ulundi (cropped).jpg would benefit from more information on its authorship, date of production, etc. The source given does not appear to be high quality.

I couldn't find anything to support its copyright status so have switched it to a PD painting - Dumelow (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Please add the standard Commons infobox for File:Amatikulu crossing illustrated london news 16 august 1879 p4.png, including a link to the source if you accessed this from an online database rather than a preserved hard copy

Added - Dumelow (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Ditto for File:Fort at eshowe.png

Added - Dumelow (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• File:Natal native pioneer Corps models.jpg appears to be a reproduction of modern(?) models, and is probably not PD if so - the models would not be eligible for freedom of panorama type provisions, for instance. Do you know when they were designed if this is based on copyright having expired on the design?

Hm, I had never considered that the unpainted, mass-produced models would have copyright but looking into it I agree. Removed - Dumelow (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• All the other images are fine Nick-D (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your review Nick-D, I have made responses above - Dumelow (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

No worries. I'm happy to pass this image review. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

2020 Salvadoran political crisis

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): PizzaKing13 (talk)

2020 Salvadoran political crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another Salvadoran (self) coup (debated)! I got this to GA in 2021. I probably considered it to be good back then but I didn't like it anymore so I completely rewrote it. This is different from my other A-class nominations since this one is more recent and relies more on news sources rather than journals or books. IIRC this is fine for A-class as long as the news sources are reliable. TLDR about this event: Bukele wanted a loan for new police equipment → the legislature said no → Bukele sent soldiers into the legislature during a meeting he convoked → legislature (shockingly) did not like that → basically nothing happened afterwards other than the legislature saying it wasn't nice of Bukele to do that. While being largely a civil conflict, I figured that it fell under MILHIST's scope due to the prominent role the military played in it. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 01:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Siege of Ariminum (538)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): A.Cython (talk)

Siege of Ariminum (538) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a unique siege during Justinian's Gothic War (535–552). Belisarius broke the siege of a numerically superior force without a fight to save his commander, who disobeyed orders. The siege is also significant because it has the seeds of Byzantine command's divisions that shaped the course of the Gothic War. The article was brought to GA in January (+DYK in February). Since then, under the mentoring advice of Gog the Mild (co-nominator), I included a section on "Primary sources" and expanded "Background" and "Scholarly assessment" sections along with other improvements. I would be most grateful for your input before submitting it to FAC. Note that I want to bring other Gothic War articles to FAC so your input would also help these articles as well. Thank you in advance for your input! A.Cython(talk) 01:30, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Review by Dumelow

I don't have a great deal of knowledge about pre-Mediaeval history so please take this as a layman's view on the text - Dumelow (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Procopius of Caesarea is the major Greek historian of Late Antiquity"

Do you mean Greek language or Greek nationality, a link would clarify

Our article doesn't capitalise "Late Antiquity"

• My understanding is that the authors emphasize the Greek aspect (language and origins) to differentiate from the Latin-speaking Romans. At the time both the Latin- and Greek-speaking citizens of the empire were considered Roman. The previous century is also considered the transition from Roman (Latin-speaking+pagan) to Byzantine (christian+Greek language). The character of the latter has its origins in 330 but only at around 500 the Byzantine character became dominant. I provide some quotes for context:
  • Bury p. 419 That there is almost as much to tell about thirty years of the sixth as there is about the whole of the fifth century, is due partly to Justinian's activity as a legislator, but chiefly to the pen Procopius. It was one of the of Justinian's glories age to have a writer who must be accounted the most produced excellent Greek historian since Polybius.
  • Cameron p. 2 He is the major Greek historian of Late Antiquity, perhaps even of Byzantium as a whole, and the proper understanding of his works is crucial to many issues, not least that of the transition from the ancient to the medieval world.

• "In Books V–VIII of the Wars, Procopius"

I would use History of the Wars which is how you refer to it in the bibliography

You only list books V through VII in the bibliography, does book VIII not have much to say? In any case I feel it should be in further reading.

•  Done changed to History of the Wars. The book VIII talks about the events after Belisarius captured Ravenna, i.e., rise of the Goths with Totila until the end of the war. I also added the last book in further reading.

• "These advantages placed him in a unique position to reconstruct the wars in the East, Africa, and Italy"

Is it possible to be more specific than "the East" as the location could mean something different to different readers.

•  Done changed it to Middle East

• "His view of Justinian ranges from enthusiasm and optimism in the first part of the Wars to open hostility in the Secret History"

You haven't introduced the Secret History and it is not mentioned in the bibliography, if not cited from diretcly to it should be in Further reading, at least I think. From the sounds of thinhs it is a later work. Do we know the dates when Procopius wrote each one?

•  Done rewrote it
• Comment: The last book of the History of the Wars was published in 553. The Secret History was probably finished in 551 (according to Bury and others), but it was not published. It was intended to be published right after the death of the emperor, but the emperor outlived Procopius and so it was forgotten in the library. It was discovered centuries later.

• "Even in the Wars, there is a transition at the point when Belisarius left Italy in mid-summer 540 AD, presumably due to Belisarius's unbroken loyalty to Justinian, followed by the resurgence Gothic resistance led by charismatic Totila, who became the protagonist and a tragic hero in Procopius's narrative in the latter part of the Gothic War."

I found this hard to follow and it might benefit from splitting. I think you need "resurgent" rather than "resurgence" here

•  Done

• "While Theodoric asked the then Byzantine Emperor Zeno permission to wear the royal regalia"

Are we talking Roman Imperial regalia here or something else?

•  Done I meant Roman

• "the Ostrogothic kingdom was the strongest barbarian nation occupying lands of the Western Roman Empire."

I would link barbarian for context

I think this should be "former Western Roman Empire"?

•  Done

• "Her reliance on Byzantine advisers and her son's Byzantine education and the assassination of her political opponents to maintain her position as regent until her son came of age,[16] however, alienated segments of the Gothic nobility."

I found this a bit long and with too many "and"s

•  Done

• "Her son died in 534, prompting the opposition to bring up the succession question"

I found this a little bit passive, can it be written more directly? Perhaps it could be combined with the first part of hte following sentence.

 Done rewrote it

• "Soon after Amalasuntha was deposed and later murdered by Theodahad in 535, Justinian considered this as a casus belli justification to intervene militarily in Italian Peninsula."

Missing "the" before "Italian Peninsula"

•  Done

• "The Goths failed to counter the Byzantine offences, while at the same time, Theodahad was in secret negotiations with Justinian"

Presumably this should be "offensives"?

•  Done

Read down to "Prelude" so far, will continue when I can - Dumelow (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• You are inconsistent in capitalising "Siege" in "Siege of Rome" and "Siege of Arminum", using both forms for both phrases

•  Done Fixed

• John (nephew of Vitalian) should be linked at first mention in the main text, he is only linked in the lead and infobox at the moment

•  Done added

• You use Vitalianus but our article is at Vitalian (consul), consider if this is the more common name? Likewise with Martinus who is at Martin (magister militum per Armeniam)
  • Comment: The literature is kind of divided between the two. For example, Bury (in original publication in 1928) uses Vitalian and Martin, but Ilkka Syvänne (2021) uses Martinus and Vitalianus.

• "Belisarius, anticipating that the Goths would attempt to besiege Ariminum, sent infantry forces to replace John and his cavalry unit, ordering John along the Via Flaminia road with a thousand horsemen to arrive in Ariminum before the retreating Goths did"

I was confused by this sentence. I thought John was already in Ariminum? Did he and his cavalry move to join Belisarius before then returning with (more?) cavalry? The next sentence seems to indicate he was ordered away from Ariminum.

•  Done rewrote, Belisarius was in Rome and John at Ariminum. He send a group (with horses) to quickly reach Ariminum give the orders to John. This was possible because the Gothic army was moving much more slowly and trying to avoid Byzantine forts.

• "In response, Vitiges had the trench filled with faggots before moving the siege over it."

Missing "tower" after "siege"

•  Done added

• "The weight of the tower caused it to sink slightly into the trench as the faggots were crushed and the earthwork, made of the dirt out of the trench, which was built behind it, stopped the advance entirely"

Consider "spoil" as a shorthand here and consider mentioning the earthwork earlier to simplify this sentence

•  Done broke the sentence into two

• "Belisarius, after securing the surrounding area of Rome, took his main army and marched north in late June."

I would switch "surrounding" and "area" here, ie. "the area surrounding Rome"

•  Done per your suggestion

• "along with 7,000-strong reinforcements from Constantinople"

I don't think you need "-strong" here

•  Done removed

• "Later in the summer of 538, the Goths lifted their siege of Ariminum and moved to Ravenna. Belisarius and his army entered Ariminum around noon."

Strange that we know the time but not the date. I assume this is as per Procopius?

• Most of the dates are given by secondary sources not from Procopius. The "noon" timing is coming from Procopius.
• source And Belisarius with his whole army arrived at midday.

Read down to Aftermath section now

@Dumelow: I was on transit early July somehow I missed the notification that you provided comments. Thank you for the review. Please let me know if I adequately addressed your comments or I need to revisit something. A.Cython(talk) 05:56, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

MIT Radiation Laboratory

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nickknack00 (talk)

MIT Radiation Laboratory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article engages the major published sources on the Rad Lab, including Henry Guerlac's official history for OSRD, Robert Buderi's popular account, and Louis Brown's technical survey. Please be advised that Volume 1 of the Guerlac history is not available online.

Like the sources themselves, the article provides a chronological narrative through the lab's early development, but after 1942 the lab's contributions span many theaters and systems simultaneously, making a single narrative thread harder to sustain. In addition to A-list criteria review, I would appreciate any suggestions for organizing this later material more clearly.Nickknack00 (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

This is a great article! Wish I wrote something like this. Some comments:

• I know MIT is defined in the lead, but you should define it in the body as well.
  •  Done First body mention is now "Massachusetts Institute of Technology"
• "Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall" -> General George C. Marshal. And link Chief of Staff of the United States Army.
  •  Done Added link and corrected title
• "Bolling Field in Washington" -> Washington, D.C.
  •  Done Amended to Washington, D.C.
• "Los Alamos, the research laboratory of the Manhattan Project" Los Alamos was not the only research laboratory of the Manhattan Project; there was also the Radiation laboratory at Berkeley and the SAM Laboratories in New York. Suggest "the Los Alamos Laboratory of the Manhattan Project".
  •  Done Corrected as suggested.
• "Bell Labs, General Electric, RCA, Westinghouse and Sperry Gyroscope" Link?
  •  Done Added wikilinks to each. The same firms have prior links in the "American mobilization of civilian science", sub-section, but it's distant from the collaborators sub-section.
• Link D-Day? Japanese air attacks on the Mariana Islands?
  • D-Day linked. I will review sources for information on Mariana Islands attacks and MEW use.
  •  Done Now ready for review, @Hawkeye7. Craven and Cate covers the Pacific theatre gap, and the National Archives had a nice photo. You may wish to check the ranks. Do let me know if details should be moved to the AN/CPS-1 article.
• " General Orvil Anderson" -> Major General Orvil Anderson
  •  Done Rank corrected.

... more to come. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:37, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the first read, look forward to more comments. The finesse of the Manhattan Project articles inspired me to dig into this one, and I hope the influence is apparent. Nickknack00 (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• "By 946–47" -> "By 1946–1947"
  •  Done. Implemented same format for all year ranges.
• "dollars worth -> dollars' worth"
  •  Done
• Thrall (1946) is not used - move to Further reading section
  • Comment: Incorporated into text. Thrall is one of the lab's three official NDRC summary reports, so I see some value in presenting all three together. So I've now cited Thrall in "Blind bombing" and the first "Fire control" sections to describe weaknesses of the systems. I've used the reports for technical details and make "limiting" claims about the lab's impacts, since the reports aren't an arms'-length treatment of the subject.
• "Two former RLE directors emerged from the Rad Lab, Julius Stratton and Jerome Wiesner and later became MIT presidents;" comma after "Weisner"
  •  Done. Modified clause order.
• "1961 Boston bank study" -> bank of Boston"
  • Comment: The source (Leslie) is ambiguous on which bank authored the study. A footnote traces this to 1986 dissertation, but it's not digitized on ProQuest. So I've modified the phrase to "a Boston bank."

Great work! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:31, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, I think I've addressed all recommendations. Let me know if further edits are required! Nickknack00 (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Support Comments by A.Cython

This is my second A-class review so I might miss a few things, and if I say something off do not hesitate to ignore. This is a learning process for me as well. I hope you find my comments helpful.

Lead

• had lasting influence in postwar → had a lasting influence on postwar
  •  Done

Main body

• pulse radar does this correspond to Pulse-Doppler radar, if so add a wikilink and perhaps using the full name?
  • Pulsing is the general technique that was improved, but Doppler radar evolved separately and later.
    • I see, very interesting.
• Both Army and Navy should "the" be added
  •  Done
• airborne systems respectively add a comma before "respectively"
  •  Done
• under single divisional heads rewrite as "single" and "heads" (plural)
• By September 1941 add comma after this
  • Similar to By July 1943
    •  Done, and verified all other clause use a comma
• none satisfactory → none of which were satisfactory
  •  Done
• when Japanese air attack → when a Japanese air attack
  •  Done
• on June 25, 1944 → on 25 June 1944
  •  Done, and have converted all dates to the same style to match the consistency criteria

Sections

• Replace pseudo-section titles, e.g., ;Official histories with normal subsection titles === Official histories ===
  •  Done

Thanks for the close read!

Many thanks, it was an interesting read. Good luck. A.Cython(talk) 20:31, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• File:MIT Radiation Laboratory BW logo 1946.png: does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright - okay
• File:MIT Radiation Laboratory magnetron tests RL-35-193.jpg, File:MIT Radiation Laboratory trainees 1945.jpg, File:SCR-584 radar in Steenbergen RL-SCR-584-188.jpg, File:Massachusetts coastline PPI scope Bell telephone magazine (1945) (14569797239) (cropped).jpg, File:Lee DuBridge MIT Radiation Laboratory c1945 (quarter length crop).jpg, File:Francis Wheeler Loomis 1944 Radiation Lab (cropped).png, File:Isidor I. Rabi Rad Lab Office GCP-00020880 (quarter-length crop).jpg, File:MIT Radiation Laboratory Theory Group 1945.jpg, File:Raytheon magnetron assembly RL-35-227.jpg, File:Trump duBridge 1945 cropped.png, File:MIT Radiation Laboratory Radome Roof Lab RL-35-279.jpg, File:Douglas B-18 Bolo RL-DR-024 (cropped).jpg, File:Radiation Laboratory Steering Committee.jpg, File:LORAN Electronicnaviga00unit 0009.jpg, File:Technician with MEW Plan position indicator scope c1945.png, File:ANCPS-1 antenna Mount Topachau Saipan U.S. Air Force Number 56404AC.jpg, File:SG Radar Console 1945.jpg, File:Radar System Engineering Radiation Laboratory Series cover 1947.jpg - In the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1931 and 1963, and although there was a copyright notice, the copyright was not renewed - okay
• File:MEW ANCPS-1 antenna and bombers NAID 6922416.jpg, File:Massachusetts Institute of Technology at the End of World War II 6922654.jpg, File:Loran day night coverage 1946 photonegative NAID 205578225.jpg, File:Ground Controlled Approach in France 1945 NAID 6922417 (cropped).jpg, File:Start Point MEW D-Day Radar 0703H 19440606.jpg - NARA image - PD - okay
• File:SCR-270-set-up.jpg, File:SCR-582 radar in Algiers 1943.png, File:SCR584 antenna mount diagram.jpg, File:SCR 584 radar.jpg, File:Flak (1944).webm - US Army image - PD - okay
• File:B-17F Radar Bombing over Germany 1943.jpg, File:B-24 Liberator 15th AAF Bombing Ploesti Romania 15 July 1944 (cropped).jpg - US Air Force image - some editors might insist on a US Army tag, as the USAF was separated from the Army in 1947 - okay
  • Thanks for catching this. I've updated the templates to PD-US-Military-Army Nickknack00 (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• File:Grumman TBM-3W Avenger in flight, circa in 1946 (cropped).jpg - US Navy image - PD - okay
• File:NDRC first meeting 19400702.png - Image by unknown federal government employee?
  • The provenance on this image is weaker than I'd like. It's immediate source is an article submitted to Science by Vannevar Bush. I'm assuming it was taken by an aide to the NDRC at its first meeting, which would make it work created for the federal government.
• File:Thinktank Birmingham - object 1972S02605.00004(1).jpg - CC4.0 - okay
• File:Edward Mills Purcell.jpg - Needs a US tag as well
  • This is not one of my uploads, but I can look into it for US copyright purposes. The issue is that the Nobel Prize committee website doesn't give the original author, so I can't identify copyright status. I'll see if I can get a library scan of the original 1952 yearbook source.

• • This has long been a source of frustration for me. When I was a newbie, I thought that I could just take images from Commons and they had been properly checked and tagged. This turned out to not be the case; Wikipedia reviewers were far more critical. But in some cases images were rejected on grounds that carry no weight whatsoever on Commons, as the two projects have different rules. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  I've been doing illustrations for a while, but wasn't aware that there were different standards across the projects. I'll double my effort to get this one cleared. Nickknack00 (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• File:Lawrence Compton Bush Conant Compton Loomis 83d40m March 1940 meeting UCB.JPG - okay per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 March 7

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:31, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Source review - pass

I will do the source review. I need a few days to go through the sources. A.Cython(talk) 02:59, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Please fix citation 168 as it produces: Harv error: link from CITEREFWhite1946 doesn't point to any citation. Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation. It seems to me that the source by White is missing.

•  Done. White wrote the opening chapter in Thrall's edited volume.

Spot check

• #4 Y
• #15 Do you mean p. 17, instead of p. 9?
  •  Done, Should be Stewart, not Baxter
• #23 Could you please provide a quote to support the —far exceeding any American microwave source.
  • I'm amending this because it is a synthetic claim. Bowen and Cockcroft report 10kW in a UK test, which they describe as "roughly a thousand times the best American tube on the same wavelength" (p. 37). This sentence discusses the 15kW Bell Labs tests, which Buderi only compares as a seven-fold improvement on Bell Labs' best longer-wavelength tube. So I can't draw the thousand-fold inference without reaching across both claims.
• #26 It would be more reasonable to have pp. 14–25 instead of pp. 24–25. Also adding pp. 144–145, where it is more clearly stated that MIT was selected
  •  Done this is now FN28
• #31 Y
• #45 Y
• #56 Y
• #68 Can you provide a quote from the source?
  •  Done Should be Stewart, not Baxter. Now FN70
• #90 Y [optional] I think p.44 is not needed
  •  Done, now FN92
• #112 Y
• #159 Y explain a bit better in the text what is a wolf pack also consider to wikilink it Wolfpack (naval tactic)
  •  Done, good idea
• #164 Y consider adding a wikilink for Wilhelmshaven
  •  Done
• #171 Add the page 1095 where the quote is located
  •  Done Now FN172. Did not modify--p. 1095 cited
• #183 Mostly checks out but can you explain the fewer than one V-1 in four? Also, change the page range to pp. 857–859.
  •  Done Now FN184. One in four refers to the number intercepted by AA (23 percent) compared to all interceptions. Corrected page range.
• #190 Y
• #193 Y
• #194 Y
• #211 Mostly checks out except for opened roughly two hundred times more radio channels on p.16
  •  Done Now FN212. Fixed, the multiplier comes from Buderi p. 252
• #215 Y
• #216 Can you double check this one? All I see is the Appendix C.
  •  Done. The article quote predates my redraft. It does not appear in my sources, so I have removed.

@Nickknack00: I completed the source review. Let me know if something is unclear. Thanks. A.Cython(talk) 04:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• @A.Cython: You should see all addressed! Nickknack00 (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Thanks, passed.A.Cython(talk) 16:12, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Review by Dumelow

Looking at the text

• "James Conant of Harvard,"

You've not mentioned Harvard before, I would name it in full and link it here rather than a couple of sections further down.

Y

• "As the Rad Lab's official historian observed"

Consider naming and linking him if possible

Y now named as Henry Guerlac

• "John Randall and Harry Boot at Birmingham University"

"Birmingham University" is colloquial, it's proper name is the University of Birmingham

Y Changed to "University of Birmingham"

• I would review your image placement. Most should be right aligned in accordance with MOS:IMAGELOC, the ones at the start of sections are likely to be most problematic.

Y I've now moved most to right-aligned. Keeping the "Origins" image left-aligned because it competes with the infobox in most non-mobile views.

• "The fall of France in June 1940 made Allied scientific interchange urgent."

As the US wasn't in the war at this point then I am not sure "Allied" is the right term to use here.

Y Removed "Allied."

• Ministry of Aircraft Production could be linked

Y

• "The mission arrived before the Army and Navy had authorized NDRC to disclose information to them"

It is plausible that a reader might not know who "them" was in this context

Y Now reads "The mission arrived before the Army and Navy had authorized NDRC to disclose information to their British counterparts."

• "Initial plans to locate the facility at Bolling Field in Washington, D.C. met delays"

Do we know what caused these delays?

Y I've removed "delays", clarifying that initial attempts to host at Bolling required NDRC to operate. (there were also issues with interservice rivalries in research.)

• Consider adding modern equivalents for dollar values stated in the text

• "nuclear physicists familiar with high-frequency techniques from accelerator work"

I would consider providing a link to explain what an accelerator is

• "a secure 10,000-square-foot space"

Provide a metric conversion (also recurs later)

Y Implemented

Read down to "Organization" so far, will continue when I can - Dumelow (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• "The laboratory operated as a civilian contractor under OSRD's Division 14"

You've not previously mentioned the OSRD

Y I've modified this section to more fully explain the NDRC ⊆ OSRD relationship. It's a little clunky because it changes over the course of the lab's operation.

• "One laboratory member characterized the division of labor succinctly: DuBridge said "Yes." Loomis said "No.""

Might be a WP:ENGVAR thing but this would read better to me withour punctuation in the quotes: One laboratory member characterized the division of labor succinctly: DuBridge said "Yes" Loomis said "No".

Y I've modified to indicate that the punctuation is exact from the source.

I would clarify which Loomis this was referring to

Y The new paragraph structure should address this.

• "1,301 nonstaff men, and 1,407 nonstaff women"

Might be ENGVAR again but I looks better to me as "non-staff"

Y Reformatted as requested

• "Discrepancies grew pronounced enough that a 1942 restructuring authorized selective merit increases to prevent what administrators feared would be a collapse in morale"

Very minor but this reads better to me as "selective merit-based increases"

Comment: I think the term is merit pay in U.S. government parlance, so I've modified to read as "merit pay increases." (I don't think a wikilink is justified per MOS:OL)

• There are some duplicated links on Bell Labs, General Electric, RCA, Westinghouse and Sperry.

Comment: Per MOS:DUPLINK, my thinking is that this is the first mention in a section dedicated to these contractors, and the links are contextually important in understanding the section. But I am happy to delink if it improves reading clarity.

• You could link HP Hood for "Hood Milk Company"

Y Done

• Might be worth stating somewhere that the US Army ran the air force in this period. Otherwise an uniformed reader might wonder why only the navy and army were involved in the research.

Y First mention of the Army now reads: "The Army Signal Corps, serving the combined Ground Forces and Air Forces before their 1947 split into separate branches, took a different path under Major William Blair." This is the section where the Army/Navy coordination issues are already clearest.

• "Plans for a similar field operation in the Pacific took shape in spring 1945, when OSRD organized a Pacific Branch under Karl Compton's direction. General Douglas MacArthur's headquarters approved the arrangement, but Japan's surrender came before the organization became fully operational."

Might be worth addng the date of the surrender for context

Y Done

Read down to the Early development section - Dumelow (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Cosnider linking Gun laying, Analog computer, Battle of the Atlantic (when talking about the anti-sub radar)

• "It returned to Cambridge after Pearl Harbor interrupted the schedule"

I would make it expressly clear at this first mention what "Pearl Harbor" means (ie US entry into the war) as some readers may not know this, also a link would probably be helpful.

• "The laboratory's model shop, the Research Construction Company, built fifty ground-based sets by hand for the Signal Corps. Five of these became the first microwave ground equipment to see combat, deployed during the North Africa invasion in November 1942"

Are these 50 sets anti-submarine radar (this comes from that section), a very similar statement in "Entry into war" suggests this might relate to the SCR-584 radar?

• The sentence fragment "But the laboratory itself required restructuring" doesn't feel right to start a paragraph

Read down to "Radar navigation and control systems"

• In discussing radio wave propogation and the ionosphere some additional links would be useful for context. Perhaps Skywave and Ground wave?

• "The 150-meter band system continued as the postwar standard, designated Loran A. A low-frequency successor, Loran C, became operational in 1957 "

I found it strange to refer to LORAN-A by wavelength and LORAN-C by frequency

• I think the concept of "unwanted side lobes" needs some more explanation. Is Lobe switching the solution described or something else?

• "Shortly after installation, operators detected a formation at 270 kilometers over the Atlantic: fourteen B-17s with 140 men, lost and preparing to ditch. A telephone call to a station beyond the aircraft's range allowed controllers to vector the bombers home"

I didn't understand what the bit about the station being outside the aircraft's range. Were they directing them to a different station that was within their range?

• Ninth Air Force, Invasion of Elba can be linked

• "Commanding General Hap Arnold had sent MEW No. 4 to Saipan despite urgent requirements in Europe"

What was Arnold commanding?

• "a 3,000-pound explosive charge"

Provide a metric conversion

Read down to Major combat systems. Your responses so far all look good to me - Dumelow (talk) 08:42, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• "Convoys of submarines, known as "wolfspack" hunted ship convoys at night, surfacing to use their high speed for pursuit and escape"

"convoys of submarines" doesn't sound right. Perhaps "groups of submarines"?

"wolfpacks" instead of "wolfspack"?

• There's a duplicate link on Loran

• Our article doesn't capitalise plan position indicator

• Mid-Atlantic gap can be linked

• "By war's end, Loran stations covered approximately 30 percent of the Earth's surface and served 75,000 aircraft and surface vessels" has already been stated in the Loran section

• "withdrew his submarines from the North Atlantic on May 24"

Elsewhere you have used the day-first order

• Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress can be linked (first mentioned in the MEW section)

• Pathfinder (USAAF) probably worth linking

• RAF Bomber Command can be linked (first mentioned in the LORAN section)

• "By year's end, the original twelve H2X aircraft were leading 90 percent of American bombing missions"

Presumably this is strategic bombing missions

"The radar proved essential when strategic bombing turned to oil."

Think this could be misunderstood, should be "began to target oil production and storage facilities" or similar

Oil campaign of World War II is a worthwhile link

• Ploiești could be linked

• Provide a metric equivalent for "1,800,000 tons", also presumably this is short tons?

This should also be done for "half a million tons" and "66 tons"

• "On July 6–7, 1945,"

Again elsewhere you have used the day first convention, which would also remove these awkward commas

• "the most successful radar bombing of this command to date"

I would clarify (in square brackets as this is within a quote) what command he is referring to

• Louis Ridenour can be linked

• Servomotor can be linked

• "the team conscripted a servo-driven gun turret"

I know it is used in a literary sense but conscripted jars a bit for me when referring to a gun turret

• "combined with the proximity fuze—a miniature radar in the shell nose that detonated when near a target"

Clarify if the Rad Lab was involved with this development

• "Modified versions guided tactical aircraft to targets that pilots could not see"

Worth a link to Tactical bombing

• "At a site near Malvern, observers watched through a loudspeaker system as a controller directed Typhoon pilots by radio"

Malvern, Worcestershire should probably be linked as there are several Malverns across the world.

How do you watch through a loudspeaker?

• The Flak video is currently aligned with a paragraph that talks only about tactical bombing, perhaps swap it with the SCR-584 image?

• "approximately $1.3 billion ($23.2 billion in 2025)"

I would add "equivalent to" before "$23.2"

Read down to Postwar legacy section

• "Because the Series was produced with federal funds"

Not overly familiar with the treatment of titles of works, but should Series be italicised here (as the full name would be)?

• I feel Louis Brown probably has a decent claim to be notable and could be redlinked

• "The Rad Lab broadly influenced the organizational structure of post-war research. Buderi characterized the wartime approach as"

You haven't introduced who Buderi is

• Link US presidents Kennedy, Truman, Eisenhower and Nixon

• I would briefly explain who Daniel P. Gross and Bhavan Sampat are and why their opinion matters

• Link Massachusetts Route 128 and MIM-23 Hawk (for "Hawk missile")

• This is the third mention of Loran extending to "30 percent of the Earth's surface"

• Link Nobel Prize

• "At least two Nobel Prizes—for nuclear magnetic resonance and the maser—can be traced directly to wartime radar work."

I would identify who won these prizes as you've just listed all the individual winners.

• Link Open sesame for context

• In the lead, I am not sure that "LORAN, the first worldwide radio navigation system" is supported by the main text at the moment

• Also can you clarify what supports "Its staff designed approximately half of the American radar systems deployed during World War II." I assumed it was "Measured by dollar value, equipment of Rad Lab design accounted for $640 million of the $1.2 billion in American radar produced during the peak year of 1944, representing over half of total output and the vast majority of microwave systems" but this appears to only cover production in 1944?

• "The 28-volume MIT Radiation Laboratory Series disclosed the lab's classified discoveries for postwar electronics development"

I think the relevant section of the article should state that the Series was disclosing classified information to support this statement. At the moment it only says that otherwise the information would only be known to Bell

That concludes my review - Dumelow (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Menéndez's revolution

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): PizzaKing13 (talk)

Menéndez's revolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Menéndez's revolution was one of numerous liberals-deposing-liberals coup-revolutions that occurred in El Salvador during the late 19th century. This style of coup is more like a revolutionary war that hasn't been seen in El Salvador since 1894, with every coup after that being the standard type of coup that we see today. I'm genuinely surprised I was able to find all the information about this that I could, but that said, I was unable to find any information regarding total strength size nor casualty figures. The article should otherwise meet all A-class criteria. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 02:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Support Comments by A.Cython

This is my first time reviewing at the MHWP A-class level as part of doing my part. This also means that my comments might miss some things as I am still learning what it means to bring an article to the highest levels. Nevertheless, I hope you will find my comments useful. I will try to go through the sources in the following days as I am not familiar with the period and locale, so I might have more comments later on.

Lead & infobox

• revolución de 1885 is italics necessary for quotes in spanish? per MOS:NOITALIC

• Yes per MOS:NONENGITALIC

• between pragmatic liberals supporting avoid sequential wikilinks per WP:SEAOFBLUE

• I tried to avoid this when writing 1979 Salvadoran coup d'état, but apparently sea of blue isn't a big deal since the reviewers recommended that I should have links next to each other during the FAC. Either way, I can't think of a practical way to avoid sea of blue here without phrasing it weirdly or holding off linking one until much later in the article.

Main body

• amnesty.Menéndez a space is missing

• Fixed

• after rejecting a new constitution adopted in 1883 that allowed → after rejecting the new constitution adopted in 1883, which allowed

• Fixed

• longest lasting → longest-lasting

• Fixed

• Salvador fearing for his life add comma before "fearing"

• Fixed

• "completely bankrupt" ("completa bancarrota") it could ease the reading flow by just saying "bankrupt" (without the "")

• Changed

• "important positions" ("posiciones importantes") similar to the previous point, having the quote does not add any value

• Changed

• "many" drop the "" they are not needed

• There is no numeric casualty figure here. "Many" is the casualty figure according to Figueroa, so it should be quoted.

Aftermath

• (Consider this comment optional for A-review as it might be FA-level) Most of this section is about chronological events after Menéndez coming to power. This all good, but I fail to see a scholarship assessment of the revolution. Have historians offered any insights or critiques on this? Why did the constitution fail after 53 years, or what benefits the revolution provided, how did it impact indigenous communities, etc. Some brief statements (accompanied by WP:RS) might further elevate the article beyond a dominant military-event focused narrative.

• Yea... scholarship assessment of this pretty much doesn't exist. I added a mention of why the 1939 constitution failed since that does have coverage (by something completely unrelated), but anything else has pretty much nothing that I could find.

• From my brief search, I also got the same feeling.

Sources

• Please fix the "Harv id errors" in #33 & #34 citations by changing in the sfn template: Aceña 1899 → Aceña|1899

• Fixed

• Bernal Ramírez reference is not cited in the main body, perhaps move it to "Further reading" section?

• Moved

• Just as you did with "Contemporary newspapers", it would useful to do the same with books. I see you have three (Ward, Martin, and Aceña) books that can be classified as contemporary.

• Done

@A.Cython: That should be everything for this batch of comments, and thanks for taking the time to look at this! PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 18:38, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for making the changes. It was an interesting read. A.Cython(talk) 01:41, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Support by Dumelow

• We typically link ranks (general, divisional general) at first mention

• Linked

• "Divisional General Francisco Menéndez, an idealist liberal,[5] fled El Salvador for exile in Guatemala after the coup failed, but he returned shortly afterwards when Zaldívar issued an amnesty. Menéndez returned to Guatemala after rejecting the new constitution adopted in 1883, which allowed Zaldívar to seek re-election."

I wasn't quite sure what the situation was here. Did Guatemala reject the constitution or is this just Menéndez's opinion? I don't think you need to say "Menéndez returned to Guatemala" in the second sentence as you've just said he'd returned in the previous one. I think the second sentence would be better just as "Menéndez opposed the constitution of 1883 that allowed Zaldívar to seek re-election". Was the date for the election set? Presumably this would have been by the people not the junta?

• Reworded

• "Zaldívar was succeeded by Figueroa as provisional president since he was the second presidential designate (third in the line of presidential succession)"

Why didn't the vice-president or first presidential designate succeed? Did they also resign?

• Not sure. Ángel Guirola was Zaldívar's vice president (and president of the legislature) and did indeed become acting president when Zaldívar visited Europe in 1884. Cañas Dinarte II says that Guirola did "mediatory work" during the revolution and leaves it at that, and then fled to Europe once Menéndez was victorious. And I don't know who the first presidential designate was.

• Indalecio Miranda, Mardoqueo Sandoval, José Domingo Arce, Miguel Brioso, Narcio Talavera, Manuel Estévez, Narciso Avilés, Carlos Molina,

As generals these people are presumably notable and worth red linking

• Linked, though I doubt they'll ever get pages.

• "The same day, 1,000 government soldiers commanded by General Miguel Brioso engaged Rivas' troops on the El Chachacaste hill near Cojutepeque, but Rivas' counteroffensive forces Brioso's army to retreat."

Should be "forced", not "forces"

• Fixed

• I feel a map noting the locations stated in the text would be useful to the reader

• "On 26 June, Menéndez issued a manifesto to the Salvadoran people published in the Diario Oficial newspaper."

I don;t think you need "issued" and "published" in the same sentence, consider if "Menéndez published a manifesto to the Salvadoran people in the Diario Oficial newspaper" conveys the same meaning?

• Reworded

• "Menéndez rejected the 1885 constitution"

You've not previously mentioned this constitution (only the 1883 one), what did it contain?

• Sources don't elaborate. He apparently just didn't like it and told the Constitutional Assembly to try again.

• "the 1886 constitution, that among other things, banned immediate re-election and established a unicameral legislature"

I think you need to state "re-election of the president" here, unless it applied to all elected positions

• Added

• "Menéndez won the 1887 presidential election in a popular vote."

probably worth mentioning that he was unopposed

• Added

• I assume there are no sources mentioning comparative strengths of casualties of the opposing forces

• None that I could find

• "The city was captured by Rivas' 6,000-strong indigenous army"

MOS:'S requires this to be Rivas's

• Fixed PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 17:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

That's all I have on the text, the article looks to be in good shape - Dumelow (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Dumelow: That should be everything responded to. I'll get back to you on the map. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 19:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks good, supporting. There's an issue with one of your changes: "On 26 June, Menéndez issued a published to the Salvadoran people in the Diario Oficial newspaper". If there's not a suitable map on Commons and the current boundaries of El Salvador are broadly the same as those during the revolution you could do a pushpin map (I did similar at Natal Native Pioneer Corps) - Dumelow (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Ahuachapán

Armenia

Atiquizaya

Chahuapa

Chalatenango

Coatepeque

Cojutepeque

El Bejuco

Ilobasco

Izalco

La Unión

Nahuizalco

Nueva San Salvador

San Andrés

San Salvador

Santa Ana

Santo Domingo

Sonsonate

Suchitoto

caption here

@Dumelow: Here is everything mapped, but it turns into an illegible mess. I was thinking about creating a map in Inkscape instead if that would work better. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 23:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I see what you mean! Yes, a bespoke map focused on the west of the country might be best to cover the main area of operations. If Inkscape doesn't work out, you can try Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop, but not sure how quick they would be able to get to it. In any case not an issue for A-class promotion. Excellent work - Dumelow (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Savannah River Plant

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Savannah River Plant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it was originally part of Savannah River Site but was split in two. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:32, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Support Comments by A.Cython

A very interesting article about a group of facilities to produce materials relevant to nuclear weapons, etc. Overall, it is well-written and sourced. My comments are mostly minor/cosmetic and note that I am not an expert. I also assume it is ok to skip the GA review process.

Lead

• I feel it is not reflective of the content, for example, the neutrino experiment, space exploration, and the environmental activities are not mentioned.

  Y Lead has been expanded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks the lead looks great! A.Cython(talk) 00:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Prose

• did not want it too isolated → did not want it to be too isolated

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• on expensive water purification → on the cost of expensive water purification

  Y Really cosmetic now, but changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• A announcement was → An announcement was

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• secure access to the water supply, and provide flexibility → secured access to the water supply, and provided flexibility

  Y Changed as suggested to match tense. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• were not fixed → finalized (?)

  Y "Fixed" is probably what the source says, so changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Decision were taken → "Decision was taken" or "Decisions were taken"

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• to an interim measure → to be an interim measure

  Y Added missing word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• ceased mid-1988 → ceased in mid-1988

  Y Added missing word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• operate at Savannah River Plant → operate at the Savannah River Plant

  Y Added missing word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• low power → low-power

  Y Hyphenated. I note that 30 Watts is not converted to Imperial, as metric is used in US customary for electricity. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• was begun in June → was begun in June

  Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• level to be raised → level was raised

  Keeping this one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• To meet the objections → To address the objections

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Final concentration was done → The final concentration was done

  Keeping this one as is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• really existed or not → existed

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• heavy-water reactor key advantage → heavy-water reactor's key advantage

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Savannah River Projec to → Savannah River Project to

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• five year intervals → five-year intervals

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• River Plantby → River Plant by (add space)

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• If you do not use an acronym then you do not need to define it, e.g., NPR, EPA, SREL, SRARP, ERDA

  Y Artefacts of the article split. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Also, is there a reason why AEC is defined twice?

  Y No. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why in "Open to the public" the answer is in boldface, i.e, No?

  Y Just the way it was when I found it. Unboldened. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Consistency

• At the lead you say use ceased in 1988. but at the infobox In use 1951–1989. So which was the final year? Note the status says active, which confuses the reader. Perhaps expanding the lead would help the reader to read the infobox better.

Wikilinks

• aluminium
• fossil fuel
• Y Linked. I note in passing that Wikipedia uses "aluminium", overriding US English. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Note

• [Optional] I am not aware of restrictions against mixed reference style system, but my limited understanding is that at higher levels it is appreciated to have a clean and consistent reference style. A.Cython(talk) 20:27, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  What sort of inconsistency so we have? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  Under the section references, the citations of books, whose information is located under "Sources", is mixed with the citation information of reports and papers (e.g., 156, 157, 158), meaning that reference information is located at two different sections. A different way to see this is by asking whether there reports and papers should be under "Sources", are they considered sources? In my mind, a fully segregated information helps with the organization of the article's bibliography and eventually to the curious reader. I suppose this is more of my personal opinion so please ignore this if not relevant. A.Cython(talk) 22:18, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Drive-by comment - as this is a clear candidate for using American English, shouldn't it be "aluminum" not "aluminium"? Hog Farm _Talk 20:30, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:ALUMINIUM: For articles about chemistry-related topics, Wikipedia follows the spellings recommended by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC): aluminium not aluminum, sulfur not sulphur, caesium not cesium. These spellings should be used in all chemistry-related articles on English Wikipedia, even if they conflict with the national spelling variety otherwise used in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:28, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Support by Dumelow

Just started and only read the first section so far, will continue when I can - Dumelow (talk) 07:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• "In response to the detonation of Soviet Union's first atomic bomb on 29 August 1949"

  Missing "the"

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• "An increase in plutonium production required more reactors. There were concerns about the vulnerability of the Hanford Site to Soviet bombers, but considerations of cost led to the idea of a second plutonium production site being rejected in 1947 and 1948."

  Were more reactors built at Hanford then? Otherwise leads the reader to question if or how plutonium production was increased

  H and DR Reactors were authorized at Hanford; they started production in 1949 and 1950 respectively. In the meantime plutonium production was by restarting B Reactor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• "By using heavy water as a moderator, they could be fueled with natural rather than enriched uranium"

  Might be worth mentioning why this would be advantageous, presumably on cost and availability grounds?

  Yes, it much cheaper and more readily available, and the heavy water reactor makes more efficient use of it. Unfortunately, I am having trouble sourcing that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  However the cheaper fuel (at today's prices slightly enriched uranium is ten times as expensive as natural uranium but it would have been more so then) was offset by the high cost of heavy water. Uranium was (incorrectly) thought to be scarce in the 1950s, and a heavy water reactor made more efficient use of it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• "The AEC's director of production, Walter J. Williams, suggested that what was required was a new production site, a new site office, and a new contractor. For the new contractor, the AEC Commissioners turned to DuPont"

  Might be worth stating who the existing contractor at Hanford was either earlier or in the next paragraph

  General Electric? Why? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  Just thought if we are mentioning "a new contractor" it would be worth knowing who they were switching from, but nothing major if you don't agree

  Y Added that GE took over the management of the Hanford Site. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• "DuPont appointed Charles H. Topping to head its site selection effort"

  Topping is mentioned only here, he has no article. Is he worth mentioning at all?

  Y Some editors don';t like it when I say "DuPont employed a version of the criteria that it had used for chemical plants." Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• "In September, as a result of the outbreak of the Korean War in June, the AEC increased the number of reactors to five, with the possibility of a sixth, power-generating, reactor."

  Presumably there was a worry that the production of nuclear weapons would need to be increased from the original plan?

  Well yes, but at the same time there was the hydrogen bomb program's demand for large amounts of tritium, which could only be produced in reactors at the expense of plutonium. At the time there was no working thermonuclear design. The Teller-Ulam design ultimately adopted did not require such large amounts of tritium. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• "Each production reactor would have a separation plant, so this meant twelve facilities, of which would occupy about 1 square mile (2.6 km2)"

  There's an "each" missing after the second comma, I think?

  You've previously said five reactors "with the possibility of a sixth, power-generating, reactor". Given two separation plants per production reactor would the sixth reactor also have been used for production?

  Y Yes. In fact, this occurs today. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• "The separation plants had to be at least 1 mile (1.6 km) apart and the reactors at least 2 miles (3.2 km) from any other plant. The whole area had to be surrounded by a 5.5 miles (8.9 km) exclusion zone from which any inhabitants would have to be removed"

  might be worth stating why this was needed

  Y Added "for safety and security". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• "twenty-nine copies of the findings of the site survey were produced, and presented to the AEC Site Review Committee on 20 November.[31][32] The Site Survey Committee had been established by the AEC in August to review DuPont's findings"

  Site Review or Site Survey committee?

  Y Site Review Committee. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Is the number of copies of the survey produced important enough to mention

  Y Probably not. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• "the towns of Jackson and Snelling were saved, but Dunbarton and Ellenton remained within the boundary"

  Consistency; you've previously described these as villages

  Changed to "small towns". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• "the property was condemned in the Federal district Court. The money was deposited with the court, and the owner could ask for up to 80 to 90 percent as credit against the final award. Property that was required immediately was obtained under a Federal declaration of taking"

  If these are not proper names I am not sure why "Federal" is capitalised

  Y De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• "While black and white neighborhoods were intermingled in the old town, the new was built along modern lines, with strict racial segregation, black and white communities being divided by the highway"

  "modern lines" doesn't read right here to me, "then modern" is more accurate but a bit clunky, perhaps there is another wording that works

  Y Deleted "along modern lines". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• " Strom Thurmond, a former governor of South Carolina who had run against Truman in 1948, was a partner in the Aiken law firm of Thurman, Lybrand and Simons"

  is the law firm name right? I would have expected "Thurmond, Lybrand and Simons".

  Y Oops. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• "The site eventually encompassed 310 square miles (800 km2)"

  All previous areas have been quoted in acres or hectares, using the same units or providing an additional conversion here might be helpful.

  There are 100 hectares to the square km. Anyone can multiply that in their head. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• "even before startup R Reactor was found to be capable of 700 MW, and in upgrades later years would permit the reactors to be run at up to 2,000 MW."

  Should this be "... and upgrades in later years..."

  Y Yes. Changed to "upgrades in". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Probably worth linking White-collar worker, Anti-aircraft warfare (for "anti-aircraft gun"), Fire-control system

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• "computerised" is presumably spelt with a z in American English?

  Y Yes. Well spotted. (So complicated - why isn't "compromised" spelt with a z?) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• "the 33rd AAA Battalion departed, the 425th and 478 were disbanded, and further military construction was cancelled."

  Missing "th" after 478

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• "The Army presence at the Savannah River Plant ended in 1960"

  if the AA units disbanded in 1957, do we know what personnel remained until 1960?

  Y Re-worded to make it clear that the 75-mm guns remained until 1959. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Capital F needed on "US Air force"

  Y Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Read down to "Cold War era operations"

Changes look good to me, continuing:

• "The Savannah River Plant, as SRS was known until 1 April 1989"

  I think this is a relic of the article split, you've not mentioned the SRS previously. Perhaps the eight later mentions should also be SRP?

  Y Yes, a relic of the split. Changed to SRP. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• I don't think much of the information about the plant in the first paragraph of "Nuclear weapon program" needs restating. You've already covered the construction of the same.

  Y Removed most of this - the rest merged into the Construction section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• You've previously said there were six separation plants, each at least a mile apart from the others but here you mention only two? Were they rationalised later?

  Y Only 200-F and 200-H were built. Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• "Construction of the first reactor at the Savannah River Plant, R Reactor, commenced June 1951, and was completed in July 1953, twenty-five months later"

  Was this the first reactor or the first production reactor, as you have previously mentioned test reactors?

  Y Yes. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think we need to tell the readers that July 1953 is 25 months after June 1951

  I wanted to emphasise how quickly the reactors were built, in contrast to what happens today. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• "R Reactor became operational in December 1953; the Savannah River Plant reactors required a longer period of testing and tweaking before becoming fully operational"

  What are they being compared to here? Presumably the Hanford reactors?

  Y Yes. Re-worded to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• "The allowed C Reactor's power level to be raised to 2575 MW in 1960, and then to 2915 MW in 1967"

  Typo on "the" for "this"?

  Y Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• "The operation of these reactors had become increasingly complex owing to the extensive manual oversight required to control various nuclear fuel types and to monitor targets irradiated at increasing high specific powers in 600 fuel positions"

  Should "increasing" be "increasingly"? But perhaps could be reworded to avoid repetition

  Y Yes. Re-worded to avoid repetition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• "The first mainframe computers installed in any of the productions reactors were the General Electric GE-412"

  Surplus s on "production"

  Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• By the end of 1964, this system was scanning more signals than any computer in the United States"

  Reads better to me as "any other computer" as this computer was also in the US

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Closed-loop controller is probably worth linking

  Y linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Read down to "Détente"

Continuing on:

• "R Reactor had already sprung some leaks."

  Do we know what was leaking?

  Y Heavy water. I thought it was obvious but clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• "there was an unexpected power surge from 500 MW to 925 MW within 2.5 minutes. This was one of the three worst reactor incidents at the SRP."

  Worst by what measure? You don't mention what actual effect the surge had.

  Um, the power surged from 500 MW to 925 MW in 2.5 minutes and everybody started thinking of scramming. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• "By 1972, all the Hanford production reactors and reprocessing activities had been shut down and N Reactor converted to maximize electricity production.[88][76] The nuclear weapons production complex was reduced to just 4 production reactors: P, K, and C reactors at Savannah River Plant, able to keep pace with demand by operating at high power levels, and N reactor at Hanford."

• I found this confusing. You say all production reactors at Hanford has been shut down but then include N Reactor there in a list of four remaining production reactors.

  Y Because I know the story from reading about and working on the article on the Hanford Site. Clarified that N Reactor was a dual-purpose rector. A pity there are so few Americans on Wikipedia; the article on the Washington Public Power Supply System could use a lot of work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• "The last of the heavy water production units at the Savannah River Plant was closed in 1982"

  Presumably they imported heavy water from somewhere else for the reactors?

  From Canada mostly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• "The effort had a budget of $214 million (equivalent to $836 million in 2025) and a workforce of 800 for the renovation effort."

  Should be able to reword this to avoid repetition of "effort"

  Y Reworded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• "a series of lawsuits from individuals and organizations concerning the discharge of hot water into Steel Creek and 14 curies (520 GBq) of caesium-137 from Steel Creek into the Savannah River."

  You've only previously said cooling water was discharged into the ponds or the river, so I think it would be helpful to establish how Steel Creek fits into this. Presumably this was a new discharge for the reactivated reactor? Might be as simple as putting "proposed" before "discharge"?

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• "In March 1987, power level limits were instituted on K, L and P Reactors due to problems with the emergency core cooling system and the increased risk of loss-of-coolant accident"

  Missing "a" before "loss-of-coolant"?

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• "The August 1988 incident during the P reactor's startup attracted media attention,[100] triggered Congressional hearings, and spurred the decision to implement much-needed nuclear safety improvements, enhance operator qualifications, and bolster management oversight before restarting any of the production reactors"

  Not sure if "the" is needed before "P reactor"

  Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Our article doesn't capitalise "congressional", there's another one in the next sentence too

  Y Take your word for it that congress is not a proper noun. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• "the "very significant leak" of water from the C Reactor in May 1965 when 2,100 US gallons (7,900 L) of heavy water was spilt on the floor;"

  I don't think you need to say "of water" if you later say "of heavy water"

  Y Reworded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Link needed for Westinghouse at first mention

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• There is incosnsitency in if you capitalise "reactor" when naming them, eg. you have "K reactor" and "K Reactor"

  Y capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• "During the war, the Manhattan Project's P-9 Project had produced heavy water at three DuPont munitions plants: the Morgantown Ordnance Works, near Morgantown, West Virginia; at the Wabash River Ordnance Works, near Dana, Indiana, and the Alabama Ordnance Works, near Sylacauga, Alabama."

  Remove the "at" before "the Wabash" as it's not used on the other two

  Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• "Girdler and, as a DuPont subcontractor, worked through the problems associated with the new process."

  Is a name missing after Girlder or is the "and" superfluous?

  Y "And" is superfluous. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• "In addition to the GS units, the plant had twelve distillation towers for the second step, and electrolysis building for the final step"

  Missing "an" before "electrolysis"

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• "In 1956, the market price of heavy water was $28 per pound (equivalent to $332 in 2025) of $14,000 per drum (equivalent to $166,000 in 2025)"

  Probably needs conversions for pound and drum (if known)

  Should "of $14,000" be "or $14,000"?

  Y Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Read down to "Neutrino discovery", will continue when I can

• Just spotted that there is a mix of use of "US" and "U.S."

  Y Set to "U.S." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• "Early research concerned cobalt-60, which was not only a heat source, but could also be used food irradiation."

  Missing word before "food"

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• "Plutonium-238 was produced by the irradiation on neptunium-237, a byproduct of the irradiation of uranium in the reactors."

  Should "on" be "of"?

  Y Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• "pressed plutonium oxide, plutonium-molybdenum cermet, or plutonium metal"

  cermet could use a link, I think

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• "the production of iridium-encapsulated 100-watt PPO spheres for Multi-Hundred Watt RTGs started in 1978"

  You don't link or define RTGs until the next paragraph

  Y Defined. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  Do we know what these RTGs were used for?

  Y Yes, it says this further down. Moved the third paragraph up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• "Between August 1969 and November 1970, an effort was made gram-scale amounts of californium-252 in K Reactor to develop a market development for Cf-252 neutron source applications.

  Missing some words before "gram-scale", I think?

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• "Twenty-one targets were processed in 1972–1973 at ORNL to recover about 4 grams of plutonium-244, "heavy curium" (i.e., curium rich in curium-246 and curium-248) and about 2.1 grams, but an incident occurred in November 1970 when an antimony-beryllium control rod melted"

  The ORNL abbreviation hasn't been introduced

  Y Another artefact of the split. Defined. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  Either the 2.1 grams should refer to the curium or another product is missing from the list

  Californium. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• "The DOE distribution center for californium-252 for transitioned from the SRP to the ORNL in the late 1980s."

  Suplus "for"?

  Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• "The case of Roger D. Wensil, a pipe-fitter, worked for the B.F. Shaw Co., a subcontractor at Savannah River Plant, stands as a significant milestone in the evolution of whistleblower protection in the U.S. nuclear sector."

  Missing "who" before "worked"?

• Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• "In 1950, once the contract formally awarded, DuPont integrated Ruth Patrick and her team from the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (ANSP) into the Savannah River Project to study the river's biological diversity prior to the operation of the planned SRP reactors, which were anticipated to elevate the river's water temperature.";

  Missing "was" before formally

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• "water as hot as 45 °C (113 °F) was discharged into Steel Creak"

  Typo on "Creek"

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• "Odum began working on the site in 1951, with three graduate students, each from a different university."

  You've only mentioned two universities before, did a third become involved?

  Source says "each was from a different university". But looking each one up, it looks like Bill Cross and Leslie Davenport were from the University of Georgia, and Edward Kuenzler was from the University of Florida. So not sure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• "The United States Forest Service was brought in August 1951 to manage and protect the forests that occupied 67 percent of the Savannah River Plant reservation at that time."

  Should be "was brought in in August 1951" or start the sentence with "In August 1951, ..."

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• "The Forest Service also maintained a wildlife and botany conservation programs."

  Surplus "a"

  Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• "their numbers on site grew from four in 1970 to 120 in 2002."

  I think the MOS would want this to be "4" for comparative numbers.

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Completed main text, I will have a quick look over the lead, captions, infobox when I can - Dumelow (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• In the lead there is a typo of "proxinmity"

  Y So there is. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• I don't think "Nuclear Materials Production and Processing Facilities" should be capitalised in the infobox

  Y De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• "H Canyon under construction (left) and as finished (right)"

  Three images are presented here, the centre and right of which both look to be in the completed state.

  Y Tweaked caption. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• "there is no record of any threat of air attack." is stated in a caption but not explicitly supported in the article. I know it is hard to cite a negative but is there anything to support this? The existence of the air defence zones suggests there was at least some level of threat determined.

  It is the original DOE caption. Sourced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• D area is mentioned in captions but not the article. I had assumed these facilities were connected to D Reactor but the dates don't tie up, is it something else?

  "A second GS facility was therefore authorized in January 1951, to be built in the 400-D area at the SRP... In addition to the GS units, the plant had twelve distillation towers for the second step, and an electrolysis building for the final step. The facility had its own pumping station to bring river water and a power station to supply electricity and steam that could burn up to 350 short tons (320 t) of coal per hour." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• "A pellet of Plutonium-238": the element shouldn't be capitalised

  Y De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• I find the first two captions in "Environmental monitoring" overly wordy. Parts repeat things covered in the main text while other statements (eg " it was the largest mechanized planting program in the United States, with 400,000 trees planted per day during the first two years. The 100 millionth pine seedling was planted in 1968 and roughly one million seedlings have been planted every year since") are novel and uncited

  Y Sourced to the caption. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• "SRNL Senior Scientist Wendy Kuhne collects plant samples along Tinker Creek." & "SRNL postdoc Maria Kriz works on structural characterization of materials using X-Rays"

  I don't think is is that useful to have the names here, unless they are likely to be notable, but horses for courses.

  "postdoc" should be expanded to "post-doctoral researcher"

  Y Expanded and linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

That's everything from me on the text. Responses look good so far and I can see no problem supporting this once the last responses are made - Dumelow (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Supporting, you might consider citing the original caption for the air defence caption, but nothing major - Dumelow (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

« 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)

@Hawkeye7, what do you mean Walker didn't surrender the 2/7th? My source says "It was Theo Walker who was now the senior officer at Skafia, and so it fell to him to perform the dreaded act." History6042 😊 (Contact me) 22:55, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

My source says:

Walker went down and found Colonel Colvin and another, who asked him the date of his promotion, and, learning that he (Walker ) was the senior, handed him Weston's order, quoted above . Walker decided that resistance was hopeless. He told his men to destroy their equipment and escape if they could. Hundreds of unarmed men were waving white flags, and soon German aircraft began shooting at them . With Goodwin, his adjutant, Walker climbed to Komitadhes, where he met an Austrian officer and surrendered to him.

— Long, Greece, Crete and Syria, p. 307

So I took that to mean that he surrendered only himself, and not the 2/7th. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, I think the combination of the two sources, mine saying he surrendered the 2/7th and yours saying he surrendered something. I think means he surrendered the 2/7th. History6042 😊 (Contact me) 01:09, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

MacDonald states that as the senior remaining Allied officer Walker surrendered all of the troops left in the bridgehead, as do Beevor and Monteath. None of them suggest that Walker surrendered just the 2/7th. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild and @Hawkeye7, I fixed the contradiction with the surrender, and while the map I am using is under copyright as far as I can tell, I added a description of the map in the "Forces" prose. All of these issues you two have brought up have been fixed. History6042 😊 (Contact me) 16:56, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

• "The Battle of 42nd Street (27 May 1941) was fought during World War II". The date should not be in brackets. Try 'The Battle of 42nd Street was fought on 27 May 1941 during World War II' or similar.
• "an attacking Anzac force". "Anzac" is a specialist term, use something more accessible to a general reader.
• "and fleeing German troops". According to the main article, the sources and the rest of the lead the Germans fled as a result of the attack, they weren't fleeing when attacked.
• "On 20 May, Nazi Germany launched". Why Nazi Germany? But not, eg, parliamentary democracy Britain?
• " Nazi Germany launched an airborne invasion of Crete." It launched a combined airborne and amphibious assault.
• "Afterwards, the Anzac troops kept retreating towards the coast." It may be worth mentioning which coast.
• "British forces also garrisoned Crete, enabling the Greek Fifth Cretan Division to reinforce the mainland campaign instead of helping defend Crete." "helping" seems an odd word. If British forces had not been present, whom would the Greeks have been helping?
• "Axis victories in Greece had given the Germans aerodromes roughly arranged in a semi-circle 60 miles (97 km) north of Crete" is incorrect. The source you give adds "with some as close as 60 miles".
• "Prior to the Battle of Crete, Axis victories in Greece had given the Germans aerodromes roughly arranged in a semi-circle 60 miles (97 km) north of Crete. These gave them air supremacy over the island, as their airplanes could operate from 60 miles (97 km) away". 1. I think that "as their airplanes could operate from 60 miles (97 km) away" can be deleted as it is repeating the previous sentence. 2. Why did these aerodromes give them air supremacy. I mean, the Brits had several air strips actually on the island.
• "The Royal Navy could thus not operate except for fast ships operating in the dark." 1. Why not? 2. Where could it not operate. Eg British warships were attacked in the vicinity of Crete in daylight on 20, 21 and 22 May; ie the RN was operating in daylight in some areas. 3. During what period, or at least starting from when? The next sentence refers back to 1 November 1940.
• "British troops began arriving on Crete on 1 November 1940, after departing from Alexandria in Egypt." Why have we jumped chronologically from May 1941 back to six months earlier?
• "They began Operation Scorcher". Which was what? - what was "Operation Scorcher"?
• "Using the Ultra decryption system". Which was what? - what was the "Ultra decryption system"?

Pausing. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean by the last two point, which what? @Gog the Mild, History6042 😊 (Contact me) 21:43, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Is that clearer? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, yes, thank you. History6042 😊 (Contact me) 22:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild and @Dumelow, I have addressed all of Gog the Mild's above issues. History6042 😊 (Contact me) 18:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: History6042 can you confirm if you have addressed Gog the Mild's comments above? I presume Gog is waiting for a response before completing their review - Dumelow (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, honestly I forgot about this review, I will get back to work on it today. History6042 😊 (Contact me) 18:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@History6042: Any progress? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:54, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Zawed as a suggested reviewer by Hawkeye7. History6042 😊 (Contact me) 23:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Sturmvogel_66

• Overlinking of battalion and Anzac in the lede and overlinking in general
  • There is still some overlinking. Adding this script will easily allow you to find them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Be consistent in naming units. Forex, 5th Mountain Division vs 5th Alpine Division. Similarly, why no translation for Gebirgjäger?
• The British Royal Navy had kept control of the sea after the initial German attack. Why is this where it is? And it needs context.
• German 1st Battalion of the 141st Gebirgsjäger Regiment We already know that the unit is German
• Need to explain why there were heavy losses at sea during the evacuation
• The dead from 1st Battalion of the 141st Gebirgsjager Regiment were found dead by the Germans A little redundancy here, perhaps?
• Why are you using the full name of the Australian contingent vs. Australians? And why are the men of the 19th NZ battalion not mentioned?

• You need links for Allies of WW2, Commonwealth, coast-defence guns, and anti-aircraft
• Be consistent about adding parenthetical German names to units
• Provide links to all ranks on first use--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Source review

• need a semi-colon in the title for Kostic
• Sources not used should be deleted or moved to a Further Reading section--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Sturmvogel 66, I have fixed all the issues you brought up. History6042 😊 (Contact me) 22:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Long is out of alphabetical order--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

    @Sturmvogel 66, I fixed the alphabetical ordering issue. History6042 😊 (Contact me) 01:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• All page ranges need to use an en dash, see cites 10, 21, 27, 42, 45
• Cite 19 should be in title case to match the rest of the references
• Cites 4, 10, 11, 15, 18, 21, 28, 31, 42 spot checked--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Sturmvogel 66, I have fixed all the issues you brought up. History6042 😊 (Contact me) 20:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Current reassessments

Please add new requests below this line