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

Transocean Air Lines Flight 942

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): TheNuggeteer (talk)

Transocean Air Lines Flight 942 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the article has good enough prose, is sourced reliably, and is broad enough. It has been significantly improved the last few days and talks about the topic well. It is already a good article. Regards, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 09:06, 14 December 2025 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Scharnhorst-class cruiser

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Scharnhorst-class cruiser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The last article in this series to grace the hallowed halls of MH-ACR: I wrote the article more than 15 years ago (which feels astonishing to say) and made some significant improvements over the last few months. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article, and I look forward to polishing it up so it's ready for FAC in the near future. Parsecboy (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2025 (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)

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Goodrich's Landing

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

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

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

Support by Nick-D

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Sorry, yes that was what my comment should have been about! Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

  That looks like a likely explanation here. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed: nice work Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

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

• I note in passing that Americans seem to have many words for the same thing: Colored, African descent, Negro, African American, Black. Should "Negro" be consistently capitalised?
  • "Negro" is only being used here in direct quote. The Confederate soldier quoted in Burkhardt capitalizes it, General Walker (quoted in Bailey) does not, and Winters (writing at a time when the use of the term was considered standard in the US) does capitalize it. Hog Farm _Talk 18:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Should there be casualties in the infobox?
  • I don't think so - that would imply a level of precision that isn't really there for this action. Hog Farm _Talk 18:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Link cotton gin? Delhi, Louisiana?
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 18:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• "Barnickel also places the value of the captured Blacks as over $100,000 in the Confederate slave economy, providing an economic rationale for the Confederates to not kill the surrendered prisoners." We've heard this one before: that the high value of slaves would mean that they would be treated well.
  • I think the idea is less that they would be treated well and more that they wouldn't be killed on the spot. Hog Farm _Talk 18:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• "30 or 40 foot square fort" Conversion?
  • Added Hog Farm _Talk 18:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• "Ralston's Mississipppi Battery" I think there are only two p's in Mississippi. (Maybe everybody does it in America.)
  • Oops, fixed. Hog Farm _Talk 18:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• "firsthound accounts" Arf! Arf!
  • Corrected Hog Farm _Talk 18:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• "that as many was 128"
  • Corrected Hog Farm _Talk 18:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• "The raids had only a temporarly impact on Union operations."
  • I apparently need to start having my wife proofread these things for me again. Hog Farm _Talk 18:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• "The Confederate initially intended to keep the infantry in northeastern Louisiana" Which Confederate are we talking about here?
  • I have clarified this. Hog Farm _Talk 19:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• "an exaggerated version of the finding of human remains in burned-out buildings by Ellet's men during the Goodrich's Landing operations" This is the first mention of this.
  • This is referencing "Union troops in the area the next day reported finding evidence of looting and charred bodies among the destroyed buildings" from earlier in the article; I've rephrased to make it clearer that it was Ellet's troops reporting this. Hog Farm _Talk 19:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• "a lurid story published in the Missouri Democrat newspaper" Was this the The Missouri Democrat?
  • I believe so. Linked Hog Farm _Talk 19:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: - Thanks for the review! I have replied above. My original goal was to try to bring up all of the Vicksburg campaign articles to FA but I don't think there's enough coverage in the sources for Battle of Richmond, Louisiana in particular. Hog Farm _Talk 19:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

You could consider turning it into a featured topic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Image and Source reviews

• Image copyright and tags all check out
• Sources are uniformly formatted
  • But, watch links for things like publishers, so the first cited work has the link, not later ones (eg: Louisiana State University Press should be linked in Barnickel, not Winters)

    I've gone in and linked the first use of every publisher with an article in the sources list. I've also made a tweak to the presentation of the incorrect ISBN for Bearss 1991 based on a discussion at an FAC. Hog Farm _Talk 01:41, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

• Sources are high quality, several from university presses, etc.
• 10.7% in Earwig, no concerns looking at what it hits on. Parsecboy (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Conscription in Rhodesia

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

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

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

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

Sure. I will review on the weekend. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:38, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi NickD, my review:

• Could we get an image for the lead?
  • Yep - moved the only one in the article there. Nick-D (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
• Why are the 1957 Defence Act and National Security Act in Italics?
  • Some sources used this, and as it's the norm in Australia I assumed it would also apply to Rhodesia given the British English links. It doesn't seem like that was the case from checking sources, so I've removed the italics. Thanks for picking this up. Nick-D (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
• In the first paragraph of the "Changes during the mid 1970s" section, we say new migrants were exempted from conscription for 5 years, but in the next paragraph we say the exemption period was reduced from 4 to 2 years. When did the exemption period change from 5 to 4 years?
  • Unfortunately I don't know. As the article notes, the frequent changes to the conscription scheme and the cumbersome way it was implemented means that historians have struggled to piece it together retrospectively, so the article (as is the case with all the sources I've used) has some gaps. I'd be guessing that the period was abruptly adjusted down by a year in late 1974 or early 1975, but haven't been able to find a source on this. Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
• What impact did casualties or injuries have on conscription and evasion? Do any sources discuss this?
  • I haven't seen a source that discusses that explicitly. Some sources note the impact of PTSD, war weariness and an increasingly common view that the war was lost, which I've included. Sources on the war generally note that casualty rates were low until the last few years, and even then were not high by the standards of more intense types of wars though the impact on the small white community was significant. Nick-D (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
• Do any sources have approximate numbers on how many people evaded the draft? If so, I think we should include it.
  • Not really. I've noted some indications of this where available (e.g. the numbers of black men who evaded the draft). As the most common way of draft dodging seems to have been emigration, I suspect that there aren't solid figures here. Nick-D (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
• Could we mention how foreign volunteers reduced (or did not) the number of men drafted? We already have the "Foreign volunteers in Rhodesia" article in the See also section, there should be some information about this in there.
  • I've added a para on this. Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

This is all from me. I will do the source and image reviews later. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

• Thank you for your review. Nick-D (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

As noted above, this is outside my area of expertise. Most of what I know about Rhodesian/Zimbabwe comes from talking to white and black emigrants to Australia.

• UDI was illegal Well, declared illegal by the UK and UN would be a better wording.
  • I haven't seen any sources that make that distinction, as it was illegal under the law that applied in Southern Rhodesia at the time. Even the South African government regarded UDI as an illegal act. Nick-D (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
• "The number of white people in Southern Rhodesia increased from 82,000 in 1946 to 250,000 in 1965 due almost entirely to immigration". There was also considerable immigration of black people, due to the better economy in Rhodesia compared to surrounding African countries.
  • Their birth rate was also higher. Brownell (2011), p. 32 notes that it's impossible to know what the extent of African migration into Rhodesia was as the borders were largely unmonitored and a lot of the migration was temporary movements of people crossing colonial-era borders that weren't meaningful to them. I've added some material here. Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
• Do we have any figures for the strength of the Rhodesian forces in the 1970s?
  • The article includes a few, especially for the final years of the war - for instance, that the average strength was around 25,000. I just tried to compile a table/graph from old editions of The Military Balance which I had high hopes for, but the classification used between the different types of personnel and estimates of their strength varied wildly from edition to edition and don't marry up well with more modern figures that benefited from post-war research so that was a dead end. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
• Is Luise White likely to be a notable historian?
  • She's prominent in the literature on southern Africa in this period, but probably not from some checking; I've removed the red link. Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
• This government lacked legitimacy, including as the Rhodesian Front continued to have a strong influence on its priorities Is "including" a stray word? This sentence seems muddled.
  • I've added a bit more detail here; the problem I was alluded to is that the main nationalist groups weren't included. The whole set up was an awkward half way house for the white Rhodesian government to try to hang onto power; they managed this but it was totally self-defeating. Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
• "In September all student deferments were cancelled" Did this mean that they all had to report at once, or just that the government stopped issuing deferments?
  • The former. I've added some extra material here. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
• "This led to increasing evasion of call up requirements, particularly among older men" I think you mean that they were evading call-up rather than the requirements. Suggest "obligations". And what means were used to evade?
  • Yep, fixed. They didn't register - added. Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
• "They placed strain on families and contributed to a high divorce rate. Many conscripts developed post-traumatic stress disorder. This led to increasing evasion of call up requirements, particularly among older men." I think the middle sentence is out of place here, and strain on families rather than PTSD was the more likely reason for evasion.
  • It was both. Something the sources note is that men found it stressful to live in a system where they alternated between their civilian lives and active military service, with no end in sight. I've tweaked the wording here to make this a bit clearer. Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
• 'This included granting military police the power to require that white men demonstrate that they were registered for national service, which came into effect in 1973." I think we mean the power came into effect in 1973. Any idea how they would demonstrate that they were registered?
• Should "mid 1970s" be "mid-1970s"?
  • Yep Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
• Should "self employed" be hyphenated as "self-employed" ?
  • Yes Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
• Should "Sailisbury" be "Salisbury"?
  • Yep, fixed. Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
• "three years service" -> "three years' service"
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
• "days service" -> "days' service"
  • I think that I've since re-worded this, as I can't find this text. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
• "Some where enthusiastic" -> "Some were enthusiastic"
  • Whoops, fixed. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Great work! I note that the article says how difficult it is to summarise how the conscription scheme operated from 1972 onwards, when you have attempted just that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

• At the risk of being immodest, I suspect that the article has ended up one of the better accounts of how conscription worked, and likely the most comprehensive, but it's patchy due to the issues the historians I've drawn on have encountered. Thank you for your comments here - I think I've now addressed them. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Image review

Copyright tags and so forth generally check out, but a couple of nitpicks:

• File:Rhodesia.png - the tag on this is wrong (given the number of images here using the same globe, many of which predate this map, it's clearly derivative, which should be cited, and whatever licensing from that map should carry over, since I don't think color-filling one of the maps crosses the threshold of originality)
  • There seem to be hundreds of versions of this map, with no clear original, so I've added a note in the records at Commons pointing at the general category this will have been sourced from. Nick-D (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
• File:National service period in Rhodesia between 1957 and 1979.png and File:Net migration of white people from Rhodesia between 1965 and 1979.png - these are both a little small. You might consider asking someone at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab to create .svg versions

Parsecboy (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

USCGC Dione

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): PhoenixCaelestis (talk)

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

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

Support from Hawkeye7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • • Done.

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

  • • Done.

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

  • • Autocorrect, undoubtedly. Fixed.

  Link Eastern Sea Frontier.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HF

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

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

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

All good, works for me haha. ~

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

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

• "Dione became the sole ship in the Fifth Naval District capable of opposing German U-boats" - maybe I'm reading the sources too narrowly but the claim there is "only one large antisubmarine ship" which could in my mind indicate that other vessels were capable of opposing the U-Boats, but just less effectively.

• Changed to "Dione became the only large ship in the Fifth Naval District".

• "She was recommissioned in February 1953" - the infobox and article body indicate that this should be February 1951?

• Typo, fixed.

• "briefly seized by a US Marshal in February 1970 in pursuant of an arrest warrant filed by the Crownwell Corporation" - I think ship arrest would be a better link here

• Linked.

• "The design was intended to balance and exceed in speed, seaworthiness, range, radio equipment, and armament." - exceed what?

• Removed exceed, but I will ping @GGOTCC: for clarification as he's the one that added that information.

• "U.S. Coast Guard and Revenue cutters, 1790-1935." - shouldn't Cutters be capitalized?

• Yes, corrected that.

• "Dione cost US$285,000 to construct." - per the source, it was a cost of $258,000

• Typo, fixed.

Ready for the Coast Guard Service section; more to follow tomorrow. Hog Farm _Talk 04:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• "She passed through all five Great Lakes but was delayed entering the St. Lawrence River due to ice" - source reads There will be little delay in starting, as the cutter might otherwise be held up by ice in the St. Lawrence". So this isn't saying that Dione was delayed by ice, rather that her trip to Norfolk was intended to avoid the cutter being held up by ice

• That's me misreading. Whoops.

• "The cutter traveled up through the remainder of the river and through the gulf of the same name before she stopped in New York for an inspection by the area commander." - given that the source newspaper article was written before the ship even entered the St. Lawrence River (October 6, with references to that part of the trip in the future tense) I don't see how we can use this as a source for that actually happening

• Removed the bit of stopping for an inspection.

• "which contained large areas of the Atlantic Ocean the waters off North Carolina" - I don't think this is grammatical

• Fixed.

• I think it would be useful to note when the US actually entered WWII

• Done.

• "and when brought aboard were found to have been from the oil tanker Francis E. Powell; the tanker had been sunk by U-130 on 27 January" - sourced to p. 27 but this information carries over onto p. 28 as well; I also think it would be worth noting specifically that Dione had depth-charged a wreck to prevent a reader getting the impression that the U-Boat had picked up these objects from Francis E. Powell

• Fixed.

• The "Second Happy Time" section is excessively long

• That was an issue mentioned in the GA article review. I'm aware of it but I don't really think there's much that can be cut. It's already heavily paraphrased from Hickam. Maybe I can remove the bit about Dione with USS Ellis off New Jersey as that event kind of stands out from the rest, but I'm not sure.

• A better option would be to split into subsections based on date ranges, under the overall larger heading of the Second Happy Time. Hog Farm _Talk 17:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

So subsections within the subsection? Is that what you're getting at? PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 19:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Hog Farm _Talk 19:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• "was found by Dione early the next morning with shell holes dotted across her hull." - again, we're drawing more from the source than it really says. It notes that North Star had been shelled, but doesn't specify what the damage was, except for the steering system issues

• Ok, reworded.

• "That same day, she picked up the crew of the Greek freighter Kassandra Louloudis" - the article you have written at SS Kassandra Louloudis indicates that this actually happened early on the morning of March 18

• Thank you for pointing this out. I've slightly reworded the text. The page for Louloudis says Acme was hit right before midnight on the 17th, and Louloudis around 1:00 AM on the 18th. I've reworded it, see if it's good now.

More to follow; ready for the paragraph beginning with "Dione rendezvoused with the destroyer USS Dickerson on 14 April, ". Hog Farm _Talk 17:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• "On 19 April, Dione led a convoy of nine civilian vessels alongside another by an 88-foot cutter" - is there an extra word in this?

• Removed the extra words.

• "Dione made another contact with a U-boat the next day, 25 June, dropping five depth charges. " - as it doesn't seem from the source that Dione was able to confirm that this contact was a U-boat, I would recommend just noting that this was an underwater contact.

• Changed.

• "Dione was listed as a convoy escort unit[60]: 119  and to conducted escort duty in the North Atlantic Ocean" - I don't think this is grammatical

• Fixed.

• "She was based out of Tompkinsville, Staten Island from December 1934[60]: 49  to December 1944" - the 1934 date is surely a typo, right?

• Yes, meant to have 1943. Fixed.

• I don't know that the U.S. Marshal ought to be listed as an owner in the merchant ship infobox; this just seems to have been an impoundment awaiting the outcome of legal actions.

• Fair point, removed.

I think that's mostly it for my review; you were able to turn up a lot more information for Dione than I was for USCGC Barberry which I wrote in 2022. Hog Farm _Talk 19:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I’ll address these in a few hours, I’m heading to an event. It’ll be handled by the end of tonight. Also, thank you! This was the culmination of some eight months of work and autism! PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 20:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you again for the review @Hog Farm! Always good to have eyes going over the prose, I always reword and change things and am terrible at catching my mistakes XD. PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 01:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Supporting Hog Farm _Talk 18:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Review from GGOTCC

• Hi everyone, I will do an image review and source check soon. Since it is finals season, I would be free sometime after the 18th. It is worth noting that I have helped write the article. GGOTCC 05:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
• File:USCGC Dione (WPC-107).png
  • Cropped image from the National Archives, all good. It is a bit grainy, but works.
• File:USCGC Jackson (WPC-142).jpg
  • From a US Coast Guard publication credited to the Coast Guard. I have a book in Maryland that should have more context, but this is all good.
• File:USCGCs Dione, Electra, and Pandora.png
  • Source credits it to the National Archives, all good
• File:Dione on the ways.png
  • Same as above, but I do not see the need to have a more cropped version of the previous image.

• It's to show a close-up of what Dione looked like while under construction. She's quite small in the original image.

• File:Accommodation plans of USCGC Dione.png
  • Free use image of a 90-year old accommodation plan. The image has been shrunk, meets the requirements on Commons, can not be substituted, and only used in this article, so it passes. However, I do not see the logic in having a scaled-down accommodation plan. None of the text can be read, let alone disortained. If PhoenixCaelestis does not, I will probably redraw the plans myself.

• Feel free to do so, I am not artistically inclined.

• File:USCGC Icarus 3"23 caliber gun.png
  • US Coast Guard photo, no issues with copyright. However, the quality is very poor as this is a scan of a book. Are there any other USCG photos of the 3"/23 that can be used? It does not even have to be on a Thetis-class cutter, as it illustrates the point either way.

• Replaced with the lead image from the article about the 3"/23.

• File:Fifth Naval District map.jpg
  • Declassified National Archive photo. My issue only issue with what it depicts. If the point is to illustrate the waters of North Carolina, why not use another image without writing? If it illustrates the 5th Naval District, why crop Maryland out? The District went as North as the entire Chesapeake and West as the Potomac

• These are the specific waters that Dione patrolled.

• File:Dione depth charges.png., File:Dione rescue.png
  • Taken from a collection from the US Coast Guard's website and credited to a CG historian. Since no other copyright is declared, the publisher is the Coast Guard, which makes it public domain.
• File:Dione escort.jpg
  • I can not access the NPS website, which this image is credited. I will check again at a later date.

• The image is credited as "US Coast Guard" on NPS website, but the USCG entry for Dione has the same picture albeit in sepia, credited to Harrison Ochs (same guy who took the above two photos).

• File:Convoy in WWII off North Carolina.jpg
  • Credited to the U.S. Navy National Museum of Naval Aviation, but I can not find the image on the website to confirm.

• Accessed it while looking through Commons.

• File:German submarine U-1228 surrenders at Portsmouth NH in May 1945.jpg
  • Same image as the lead, but not cropped. Public domain
• File:MV Delta I, post-refit, 1970.png
  • Similar situation with a fair use image. It passes requirements on Commons, is one-of-a-kind, and is integral to the article. This time, the compression does not interfere with the image that much.

This is my first ever image review. If I did something wrong, tell me! Great job, @PhoenixCaelestis:! GGOTCC 23:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

• Good to hear, thanks! PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 14:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

2001 Biggin Hill Airshow disasters

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): 11WB (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feedback from Mjroots - There have been other accidents at the Biggin Hill Airshow that caused the loss of aircraft and deaths. I remember one happening to a twin-engined warbird that was carrying passengers, with several deaths. As far as I recall, this led to a ban of passengers being carried by display aircraft in the UK. So, maybe the addition of a background section is warranted? Mjroots (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

It was the 1980 Biggin Hill Invader crash that I was thinking of. Mjroots (talk) 07:07, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Mjroots! There have been several larger accidents involving Biggin Hill, including the 2008 Biggin Hill Cessna Citation crash. That one was arguably worse as it impacted a residential building. Very tragic. I wasn't aware of the passenger ban, there seems to be no shortage of archived coverage available on the British Newspaper Archive website. I did have an active subscription for one month whilst researching for another article. I paused access after as it's reasonably expensive. If any archived coverage can be found confirming the CAA ban, I would definitely support its inclusion.

Just as an aside, I did revert this as Biggin Hill Airport is in Bromley, which is in Greater London, rather than Kent.

I have this page watchlisted but didn't receive a notification. I've re-watchlisted this page now, so hopefully I'll get notified when somebody adds a new comment here. 11WB (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@11WB: re the Wikiprojects, both Biggin Hill and Bromley were historically in Kent, until London stole them. May I suggest that the addition of both WP:KENT and WP:LONDON would be better than having WP:ENGLAND? Mjroots (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of how that is handled on Wikipedia. I would assume it goes by which area it is in now, rather than historically? According to the lead paragraph of Bromley. it became apart of London in 1965, which was 36 years before the air show disasters. I am not opposed to the Kent WikiProject being listed, however it is inaccurate now. 11WB (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

It falls within WP:KENT's project scope, which is why I changed it in the first place. Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, it was a good-faith revert. With this confirmation regarding scope, I have no issue with its inclusion. I am honestly surprised there isn't a WikiProject for London (that I know of).

I welcome the inclusion of the CAA ban. I'll search for some sources in the coming days, time permitting. 11WB (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Edington

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Thelifeofan413 (talk)

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

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

Note on sourcing

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

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

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

Further comments

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

@Thelifeofan413, it has been 17 days since @Dudley Miles posted the second round of comments. Any replies? Matarisvan (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for my absence. It was a break. I will get back to it now. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

What should I use instead of the Smyth books for the required statements? Thelifeofan413 (talk) 11:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Abels is a better source than Smyth 1995 and Swanton than Smyth 2002.

I have looked at some comments you cite to Smyth and has several problems: "The fact that his army could not defend the fortified Chippenham, even in "an age... as yet untrained in siege warfare"[20] casts great doubt on its ability to defeat the Danes in an open field, unaided by fortifications. There was little that Alfred could do about the Danes from 875 and the end of 877, beyond repeatedly paying the invaders off.[25]" This is very dubious. Ref 20 is Smyth, and his comment refers to Wareham. He says, on page 72 which you do not cite that Chippenham may have been fortified. The second part is cited to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and is apparently your deduction from a primary source. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

HMS Lizard (1757)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Euryalus (talk)

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

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

Support by Dumelow

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

General

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

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

Construction

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

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

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

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

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

Should be "fully-built", I think?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair enough

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fine by me

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

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

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

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

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

Looks good to me

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

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

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

Yep

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should be "privately-built", I think

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

Would probably benefit from a link to Wood drying

• • Done

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

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

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

Seven Years' War

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

Yep, I missed that, thanks

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

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

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

Thanks, that's good info.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peacetime service

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

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

• • Done

American Revolutionary War

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

Not sure if you've got around to this?

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

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

• • Done

Glanure has quotation marks instead of italics

• • Fixed

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

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

Any clue as to the nationality of this vessel?

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

I think this should be "the Admiralty's"

• • Done

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

French Revolutionary Wars

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

Think this should be "the Admiralty"

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

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

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

Lead

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

As previous, amend for compliance with MOS:NUMNOTES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infobox

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

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

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

@Dumelow: Thanks very much for the comprehensive review. And pologies for some of the typos along the way!-- Euryalus (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Image review by PhoenixCaelestis

Three images here.

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

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

@PhoenixCaelestis: Thanks! -- Euryalus (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

HF

I'll review this over the coming days. Hog Farm _Talk 03:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• " In these periods of service Lizard secured 39 sixteen victories at sea, " - has something gone wrong here?
  • Fixed, was a copyediting error, sorry. I've included all the vessels that are uniquely named in the relevant sources (or listed in sources as unnamed but with some details), which adds up to the 39. While an impressive figure overall it does include a large number of vessels that were essentially unarmed merchant craft. I guess all's fair in wartime.
• "consisted of 20 personal servants and clerical staff, four assistant carpenters an assistant sailmaker and four widow's men" - shouldn't there be another comma or two in this?
  • Fixed

This is looking to be in good shape so far (I am not an expert on 18th-century British naval matters); will continue with the peacetime service section hopefully tomorrow. Hog Farm _Talk 01:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

• "baggae"?
  • Baggae is of course an ancient nautical term for people with fat fingers who cannot manage to type accurately. Fixed.
• Ref 37 lists a couple of other captures but without a date - is it worth mentioning those as well
  • Done.
• I think it would be significant to note that the 1777 captures table includes some ships captured in conjuction with Carysfort but also some attributed to Lizard alone. This is already suggested by the text before the table, but a straightforward reading of the titling of the table is implying that those vessels listed were taken by Lizard unaided
  • Contemplated adding these as an extra column in the tables, but have added as footnotes instead. Let me know if looks okay or needs more explicit mention.
• ""Naval Documents of The American Revolution Volume 11 American Theatre: Jan. 1, 1778–Mar. 31, 1778 European Theatre: Jan. 1, 1778–Mar. 31, 1778"" - badly needs page numbers added as this source is nearly 300 pages long
  • Done
• "On 18 May 1780 Lizard was in company with the 10-gun Royal Navy cutter HMS Busy in the Channel when they encountered the former Royal Navy cutter HMS Jackal which had been lost to the French after her crew mutined in 1779." - could I please get the quote from the source? HMS Jackal lists the recapture as occurring in 1781 courtesy of Prudente which is supported by this from the Gazette
  • Yes this is an odd issue:
    • Prudente alone: The Gazette and Clowes (a go-to secondary source) credit Prudente alone;
    • Prudente, or maybe Lizard/Busy: Winfield (another go-to secondary source) credits Prudente alone at p.329 but then credits Lizard and the cutter Busy at both p.227 and p.330 (with no mention of Prudente and no explanation of the contradiction)
    • Lizard/Busy: The Derby Mercury (ref 40) reads: "At half past four A.M. on the 18th we saw a small sail in the S.W>, upon which I made signal for the Busy cutter to chase to that quarter ... the other ships followed the Busy cutter, but she being far ahead first came up with, then began a smart action with the chase and continued for a considerable time, till the Lizard approaching near, the chase struck, and proved to be the Jackall (late His Majesty's cutter) mounting 12 guns and 88 men."
    • Syren/Lizard/Busy: Saunders Newsletter (ref 41) describes the prisoners from this engagement: "56 French prisoners were shipped from Leith ... part of the crew of the Jackal cutter, taken off Norway in May last by His Majesty's Ships Syren, Lizard and Busy cutter."
    • Prudente again: On the other hand another contemporaneous newspaper, the Sherbourne Mercury, has this from 30 July 1781: "The Prudente frigate has taken and carried into Portsmouth the Boulogne cutter of 16 guns and 12 swivels and 75 men ... this cutter was formerly called the Jackall, in His Majesty's service."
  • So we have contemporaneous and current secondary sources all disagreeing over who actually retook the Jackal in 1781. The only eighteenth century source with significant detail of the event (Derby Mercury) firmly attributes it to Lizard/Busy, and actually describes the battle. But the Gazette only seems to register prize money payouts to Prudente, which is not even mentioned in the other newspaper reports. We also have some substantial differences in the estimated size of the vessel - Winfield describes Jackal as a 10-gun cutter with 60 crew, which is in keeping with her overall size and function, but the Sherbourne Mercury says 16 guns + 12 swivels, which is unlikely to have been physically possible on such a small boat. Was this even the same vessel? Who knows really. I've added a footnote noting the disagreement on attribution, hopefully that works. Let me know if you have a view either way.

I think is it from me. Hog Farm _Talk 01:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Support of the nonexpert variety. Hog Farm _Talk 01:26, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Pickersgill-Cunliffe

Can't get much more up my alley than this. Feel free to incessantly bother me if I don't get on this soon. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

• Hi Pickersgill-Cunliffe, just wondering if you have any views on the Lizard/Busy vs La Prudente issue mentioned above? I've started a draft of HMS Jackal but the variations over who recaptured her will make that (and this) article weaker. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  An interesting conundrum. Hepper has Jackal being retaken by Prudente on 23 July 1781. Winfield's French volume for the period chooses not to take a side, only saying "retaken 5.1780 by the British".

  We have issues with both the date and captor, if taken at face value. I might suggest we in actuality have two Jackals being recaptured separately. It could be pertinent to note that the 1780 Jackal is generally spelled thus, while the 1781 Jackall is as so. Also notable that Winfield only labels the ship captured by Prudente as "ex 14-gun cutter Jackal", while Lizard and Busy say variations of "retook...Jackal".

  Worth further research I would think, but if an answer isn't confirmed, I would suggest going with the Winfield reliable source in describing this capture as simply of the cutter Jackal, with a note describing the discrepancy and the recorded capture of the other/possibly the same Jackall a year later. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

  • Thanks will try a reword for this article. In researching Jackal I've also found sources indicating the French merchants who bought her from the mutineers renamed her "La Vengeur" rather than "Boulogne." Possibly she was re-renamed over the next twelve months. Or maybe there were two separate Jackal's, as you suggest. Will continue the hunt. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

1931 Salvadoran coup d'état

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): PizzaKing13 (talk)

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

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

Note to future reviewers: I am currently in the process of moving (again), and I may not have access to wifi after this upcoming Tuesday for an indeterminate amount of time. I'll try to respond to any comments as soon as possible after that date. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 02:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Wifi access is hit or miss but I should be able to respond to comments in a reasonable amount of time now. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 00:06, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Support by Dumelow

Looking at the prose:

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

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

• Changed tense

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

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

• Changed tense

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

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

• Changed

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

Something is awry in the first clause here

• Rephrased

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

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

• Rephrased

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

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

• Fixed

• "El Zapote barracks, where the coup began"

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

• Added date

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

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

• Changed

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

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

• Removed

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

Do we know the name of the successor?

• Yes, Salvador López Rochac. Added

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

• Linked all at first mention

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

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

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

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

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

• Changed

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

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

• Done

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

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

• Done

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

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

• Removed the sentence

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

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

« Return to A-Class review list

USS Missouri (1841)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): GGOTCC (talk)

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

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

Support from Hawkeye7

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

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

Some comments. The article looks great to me:

• The ships were named after the rivers and not the states?
  • Yes! Back before the Civil War, the US Navy wanted to find uniquely "American" names for ships, which were often rivers (Potomac-class frigates) or Native American tribes (Wampanoag-class frigates). It was only after a Civil War was a nominally unified naming scheme introduced that emphasized state names.
• "By 1839, both the French and Royal navies had at least 15 steam warships in service" The Royal Navy had 27 steam vessels in 1836 and 80 paddlewheel steamships by 1842. [1]
  • This is a good point, but I am unsure where to add the claim without either backtracking or accelerating the timeline. The source is true but is specific to 1839 to directly compared the USN and RN.
• "sistership" -> "sister ship"
  • Done
• Space after the following full stop.
  • Done, thanks!
• Link "curt-martial" to "Courts-martial of the United States"?
  • Done
• "President Tyler" -> "Tyler" ? (MOS:SAMESURNAME)
  • Done
• "Captain Newton" -> "Newton" ?
  • Done
• "the disaster was due to the steam engines" Meaning that the use of steam was still considered controversial?
• Since this article is in US English, should it be Gulf of America?
  • Gulf of Mexico is more common, even in American English. I have also seen pushback against the term here on Wikipedia.

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

Review from Dumelow

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

Hi GGOTCC, I see you have responded to some of my comments below. Just checking if you intended on responding to the rest? - Dumelow (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Dumelow! Sorry about that. I am waiting to get a source so I can make the info about Thompson make more sense. I will incorporate the rest of the feedback once I get it! GGOTCC 21:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

No problem. Just didn't want this held up for you otherwise - Dumelow (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Development and design

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

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

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

May be worth linking Bow (watercraft)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "an average speed between 7–10 knots"

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

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

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

In the Americas

• "Her engines were designed by Charles Copeland,"

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

• "she was completed and commissioned"

Worth linking Ship commissioning here

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

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

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

Consider avoiding repetition of "operate" here

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

Which critics?

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

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

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

I would omit the second "the Navy" here

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

I would use "were a part" here

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

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

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

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

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

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

Destruction

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

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

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

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

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

What position did Clum hold?

• "The first lieutenant responded"

Do we know his name?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image review from PhoenixCaelestis

There's four images used here..

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

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

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

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

• File:Caleb Cushing.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

« Return to A-Class review list

Bertrand Clauzel

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): LeChatiliers Pupper (talk)

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

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

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

--

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

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

Support from Hawkeye7

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

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

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

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

Just a few:

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

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

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

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

HF

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

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

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

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

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

Coordinator note

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

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

Comment by Dumelow

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

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

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

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

« Return to A-Class review list

Operation Forager logistics

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

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

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

HF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nick-D

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

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

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

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

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

• "and two corps" - link corps

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

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

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

• The article would benefit from a more detailed summary of the operation in the background section to provide context for the later sections. E.g. a para on the operations on each island.
  • This comment remains outstanding. Nick-D (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

    Y My first thought was that I could lift this from the main article, but it has only one sentence on operations. Added three paragraphs to the background section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matarisvan

Hawkeye7: The article is alright on prose but fails on comprehensiveness. The words Peleliu and Angaur are not even mentioned anywhere in the entire article, let alone their logistics, even though they were part of Op Forager. Philippine Sea is mentioned twice but the logistics of this battle are not included. I think there must be some mention of the logistics of this battle in sources even though it was a naval battle, because it is the largest aircraft carrier battle in history to date.

You mention the reactivation of Tinian Base in your reply above, but you haven't included this information in the article, even though Guam Base history is covered almost to the current day. Peleliu and Angaur Bases were also recommissioned in 2024. I'm surprised how NickD missed these omissions given his knowledge of World War II. Perhaps you were waiting to rewrite the articles about these 3 battles and gathering specific sources before writing about them here? In any case, one or two paragraphs for each battle should do as you already have many sources on the campaign. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Nick-D indeed does have an encyclopaedic knowledge of World War II. Peleliu and Angaur were not part of Operation Forager, the invasion of the Mariana Islands, at all, but Operation Stalemate, the invasion of the Caroline Islands a month later. I have no intention of working on the article about Peliliu. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:25, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, not including Peleliu and Angaur is now quite alright with me given your rationale. In your most recent edit about Tinian Base, you added a citation to GlobalSecurity, which was declared unreliable by Wikipedia:GLOBALSECURITY. I suggest replacing this citation before I can do the prose, source and image reviews. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

This has been removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, sorry to bother you again within 1 hour after my previous comment, but I found some sources for the 1983 50-year lease. [2] from the Dept of Interior says the lease was for 17,799 acres and not 16,100 acres. This [3] from Marianas Variety says 7,283 hectares (18,000 acres). ACHP says the current lease is for 16,100 acres at [4], so the remainder 1,699 acres were probably reclaimed by the owner CNMI. Matarisvan (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I have incorporated this into the sub article, with this article retaining a brief summary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, I have no other issues on the prose review now, I fixed those I spotted myself in a previous edit. I can support this nomination now, and I will try to do the image and source reviews soon. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Initial supply by classes for Saipan, Sicily, Luzon and Normandy.jpg - this is a little grainy, and I bet the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab would be able to create an SVG version - may be something worth considering while this article is waiting in the FAC hopper

• Request submitted at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop#Request for a new version of initial supply by classes for Saipan, Sicily, Luzon and Normandy chart

• File:USS Mazama (AE-9) c1956.jpg - link appears to be dead

  Added archive link. ([5] Why can't Commons do this?

• File:80-G-238680.jpg - getting a page not found error on this link

  Seems to have moved to [6] Updated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

• File:Isley Field Saipan 1945.jpg - I've nitpicked you on this before, but technically this should be the Army version of the template

  Switched to Army template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Parsecboy (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Images look good now, great work! Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Current reassessments

Please add new requests below this line