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

Ovonramwen

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Vanderwaalforces (talk)

Ovonramwen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it goes without saying (at least, after reading) that Ovonramwen’s rule really shaped the history of the Kingdom of Benin, a kingdom that lasted several centuries. I’m looking forward to later nominating this at FAC but I’m sure the A-class criteria is met, so I can’t thank you enough for taking a look at this and providing feedback already. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2026 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Taginae

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): A.Cython (talk)

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

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

Andrew Hastie

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): TarnishedPath (talk)

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

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

Hi all,

Just a note to let everyone, who may be reviewing this, know that I'm going to be travelling for a month from Sunday. I'll have a laptop with me, so hopefully I'll be able to address any feedback in that time; howver, just for everyone to be aware that my replies may be delayed. Curtesy pings @Hawkeye7 and @Nick-D. TarnishedPath^talk 04:21, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

Disclaimer: Although we were both at ADFA at the same time, I don't recall ever meeting him.

• What is OpenAustralia?

I've added a note about what it is. TarnishedPath^talk 10:18, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Shadow Minister for Defence Industry & Defence Personnel" Change the ampersand to "and"

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 10:22, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Royal Military College, Duntroon in 2006" Comma after "Duntroon"

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 10:24, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• In the infobox, his wife's maiden name is generally more useful

It's not in any of the sources used to reference her relationship with Andrew and I've not been able to find it by performing any searches. TarnishedPath^talk 09:49, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Early life and education

• We need to repeat his full name and birth date here; otherwise it is unreferenced.
• Link "primary school", as this will not be understood by an international readership
• "Hastie's maternal grandfather Reginald, a war veteran" Do we know of which war"
• "His father Peter" Commas around "Peter"
• "church pastor" Is there another kind? And link pastor
• Link Presbyterian church
• Define UNSW on first use (although it is fairly obvious)
• Link Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918.
• Use "he" instead of "Hastie" after first use in the third paragraph.

Done all. With the maternal grandfather bit. I've removed mention of Reginald (by name) or of them being a war veteran as it is not supported by the source. This article has had issues with connected contributors in the past and I suspect that bit was original research. I have however, added detail about his paternal grandfather being a Flight Lieutenant who served in the Pacific War. With UNSW, I've replaced it with the full name and have not defined the acronym as it is only used once in the whole article. TarnishedPath^talk 11:10, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Scratch what I wrote about UNSW. It is used more than once. I've defined it. TarnishedPath^talk 11:12, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Military career

• I would say "posted to" instead of "posted with"; the latter would imply a temporary assignment
• Not seeing the relevance of fn 11. Doesn't seem to cover the text.

Done the above two. No idea what fn 11 was about. TarnishedPath^talk 11:20, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Political career

• Link Division of Canning

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 11:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Link Liberal Party of Australia, Australian Labor Party.

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 11:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Ps, I linked the Liberal Party of Australia in the lead in case you're wondering. TarnishedPath^talk 11:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Do we know when he joined the party?

2013. See Special:Diff/1365789192 where I move a sentence from the military career section and add a bit more. Being up front here, one of the sources used is Herald Sun, which I have removed from numerous articles as I consider it to be not reliable; however, this particular Herald Sun article is an interview with Hastie and so I think it passes WP:ABOUTSELF. TarnishedPath^talk 12:12, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• "media criticism about his family's religious beliefs" Can you elaborate on whet these were? And are we talking about his father or himself?

I've updated the wording as the source doesn't state that he faced any criticism. You're correct, that it's about his father and the media were questioning whether Hastie was a creationist like his father. TarnishedPath^talk 10:01, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• "the government of Malcolm Turnbull who had" Comma after "Turnbull"

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 10:04, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• "This moved the seat from "marginal" to "fairly safe" according to the Australian Electoral Commission." Actually, the reference says it moved from "safe" to "fairly safe".

Updated. TarnishedPath^talk 10:05, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• " Scott Morrison was subsequently elected leader of the Liberal Party, thus becoming Prime Minister of Australia as leader of the majority party in the House of Representatives." Reference required here.

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 10:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Link Minister for Defence (Australia)#List of assistant ministers for defence

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 10:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Use "he" instead of "Hastie" after first use in the first paragraph of "Opposition (2022–present)"

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 10:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Link Anthony Albanese

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 10:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Link nuclear power in Australia. You could consider a few words to put this in context.

Done and added a bit of context. TarnishedPath^talk 10:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• "conservative MP Angus Taylor" Do we really need " conservative MP"? It is a false title.

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 10:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• "this time under Taylor" Seems redundant to me.

Removed. TarnishedPath^talk 10:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• "the position of Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, a position which had become available" I would say, "had been re-created"

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 10:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Views

• Use "he" instead of "Hastie" after first use in the first "China" paragraph.
• Link ABC News (Australia)
• Labor should have been linked earlier
• Link Same-sex marriage in Australia and Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017
• Nothing about his religious views?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Hawkeye7, thankyou for time undertaking this review. I'll try and address some of your points tonight. TarnishedPath^talk 23:34, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I've just addressed all of these points except his religious views. I'll address that later. There is some sourcing on it. Ps, Same-sex marriage in Australia was already linked on the words "same-sex marriage" in the marriage equality section. Also the linking of Labor was addressed above, so I've removed the link there. TarnishedPath^talk 12:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Ps, I'll probably leave the adding content on religious views to the end once I've addressed all of the above. Remind me if I forget to come back to it. TarnishedPath^talk 09:53, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I've just moved a sentence that was near the top of the views section into a subsection about Christianity and marriage equality (there's obviously a bit of cross-over), taking the material that was already in a subsection on marriage equality. I've also added a bit more. @Hawkeye7, please have a look and let me know if you'd like any further changes. Ps, I think I've also addressed all of the above, so please have a look when you have time and let me know what other suggestions you may have. TarnishedPath^talk 08:29, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

The outlook of politicians like Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison were defined by their religious beliefs. Yet here we have someone ostensibly defined by deep faith but apparently having no preferred protestant denomination. (In the Army, though, it is normal for separate church services to be held for protestants and Catholics.) I have linked a couple of religious terms. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll have a look and see what the sourcing says about their denomination later after work. I suspect that it is either Prysbertarian of Baptist, but I'll have a look. TarnishedPath^talk 22:15, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I think he declared himself to be Anglican. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:44, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, you were very much correct. He has said that he's an Anglican. I've added that and removed original research which stated that he's been a part of various revivalist churches after being an atheist. TarnishedPath^talk 10:41, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, were there any further changes you thought should be made to the article? TarnishedPath^talk 06:18, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

No, I'll just support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:26, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Nick-D - support

I'd like to offer the following comments:

• At the outset, I'd note that this article has long been infected by people who appear to have an undisclosed conflict of interest of some kind with Hastie or his political party. I'm not sure that this has been sufficiently exorcised from the article, though the work to improve it has been impressive.
• "the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) of the University of New South Wales (UNSW)" - I'm not sure that this is the correct formulation. ADFA is its own thing, with the UNSW running the academic side and awarding degrees.

Updated wording to state that he studied through the University of New South Wales at the Australian Defence Force Academy. TarnishedPath^talk 11:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• "with a bachelor's degree in history, politics, and philosophy" - this doesn't seem correct. His APH biography says that he has a bachelor of arts (hons).

Sources state that he did a Bachelor of Arts (Hons) in History and Philosophy. Updated as such. Ps, I also found some stuff I couldn't verify, particularly around dates. I've removed it. TarnishedPath^talk 11:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• "who has served as the deputy leader of the Opposition" - this isn't correct. Jane Hume is the Deputy Leader - Hastie has the position of "Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives".

Fixed. TarnishedPath^talk 13:22, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• What's the relevance of Hastie's grandad being in the RAAF? The great majority of men in Australia served in the military in some form during the war.

I've added some context about Hastie stating that his grandad's actions during the war being an influence on his values. TarnishedPath^talk 09:50, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• "his final thesis examined Charles Bean's Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918" - can more detail be provided on the topic here?

@Nick-D, Nothing more in-depth from either from The Herald Sun piece (which supports the current material) or The Australian. Those two sources are probably the most in-depth about Hastie. Web searches I performed didn't find anything about his thesis; however, I did find that in his speeches it has been no uncommon for him to make references to Bean, that doesn't help with this though. TarnishedPath^talk 11:19, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Hastie participated in 45 parliamentary debates in 2019—above the parliamentary average—with most contributions relating to national security matters" - I can't see this in the source

This is probably more original research inserted by prior editors with a COI. There's a chance that the links on that OpenAustralia page have material which can be interpretated as as supporting the claim, but that would still stand a good chance of being OR. I've removed it. TarnishedPath^talk 11:23, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

• The para starting with 'Hastie opposed dredging' reads like puffery. This is routine types of stuff for MPs.

• I think this should be kept. A common criticism of articles on MPs is failing to mention the routine stuff. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'd suggest in that instance that the material also note unsuccessful advocacy by Hastie. This kind of material is often 'MP called for X', which is part of their job, with no information on the result. As it's quite common for MPs to fail to achieve some of the stuff they call for (as is not unreasonable given that there are often apolitical processes that decide where funding will go, what projects are greenlighted, etc), the material should be balanced. An obvious example is that Anthony Albanese has spent much of his career as a federal MP disputing the flightpaths for Sydney Airport, which is a huge issue for his electorate, with only mixed success: it obviously hasn't greatly held him back as a local MP or in leadership roles. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'll see what I can do here when I work though this some more tonight. TarnishedPath^talk 00:36, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• There is no detail on what Hastie did as the Assistant Minister for Defence.

See Special:Diff/1370264368. I've added some detail on him giving a speech to troops that they were in the business of killing. Besides that all I could really find is routine stuff like him opening health centres are different barracks. See https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/joint-capabilities/9778-new-act-health-centre-to-serve-our-adf-members and https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/joint-capabilities/9823-hastie-opens-new-health-centre-at-campbell-barracks for examples and I'm not 100% sure on the reliability of defenceconnect.com.au. Let me know if you think stuff like that is worthwhile giving some detail on. TarnishedPath^talk 03:09, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Hastie was one of the few Liberals in a metropolitan seat to record a swing in his favour, and the only Liberal from a Perth-based seat. " - he actually got the smallest swing of the (few) sitting Liberal MPs in WA. He is also the only Liberal MP representing any of the seats in Perth, with the ALP holding the rest.

Updated to The election saw heavy losses for the Liberals in metropolitan Australia. Hastie was one of few metropolitan-adjacent Liberals nationally to record a swing in his favour at the election, on both a primary and two-party basis.[37] Following the Liberal Party's loss in the seat of Bullwinkel to Labor's Trish Cook, Hastie became the only Liberal MP representing a metropolitan Perth seat.

The Hamish Hastie (no relation) source states "Hastie was one of the few metropolitan-adjacent Liberals in the country to record a swing towards him on both a primary and two-party basis, at 1.7 per cent and 4.6 per cent, respectively." It isn't comparing him to the other WA Libs. I've also added sourcing to state that given the Libs lost Bullwinkel, Hastie became the only metropolitan WA Lib. TarnishedPath^talk 04:06, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• The article doesn't cover Peter Dutton's very strong criticisms of Hastie's performance as the Shadow Defence Minister. From memory, Niki Savva reached a similar conclusion in her book Earthquake.

I've added the following:

"In submissions to the Liberal Party's post-election review, Dutton criticised Hastie's performance as Shadow Defence Minister. According to reporting on the submissions, Dutton said that Hastie had gone "on strike" and had failed to prepare a detailed costing for the Coalition's proposed increase in defence spending. Dutton stated that as consequence, the coalitions defence policy had been release late in the campaign. Dutton also said that Hastie had been reluctant to criticise the Albanese government's defence record in the media. Hastie rejected the criticism, saying that Dutton and his office were responsible for the late release of the Coalition's defence policy."

TarnishedPath^talk 10:04, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• The 'China' section seems too long - can his views be summarised rather than presented in a blow by blow way?

Please see Special:Diff/1370255486, where I've trimmed out material about Chau Chak Wing, Huawei and Wang Liqiang. I think this was more the stuff where it becomes "blow by blow". Let me know if you think I've chopped too much. TarnishedPath^talk 01:50, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• "On 4 June 2020, the 31st anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, Hastie joined a group of nineteen other politicians from eight countries and the European Parliament to form the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China." - not referenced

I've removed this. @Pangalau had added a reference for this after your comment here. However, the source was the Central Tibetan Administration, which has been previously discussed at WP:RSN, with there appearing to be no consensus on its reliability. The usage was also challenged at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Andrew Hastie (nom). TarnishedPath^talk 10:29, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• The article doesn't currently cover Hastie's involvement in legal actions relating to Ben Roberts-Smith and alleged war crimes more generally.

I've added a section at Andrew Hastie#Ben Roberts-Smith war crimes allegations. I wasn't sure if this should be its own section or if it should be a subsection of something else, but I couldn't really think of where it cleanly fit. Let me know if you'd like more detail. TarnishedPath^talk 11:27, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• The 'views' section would benefit from a sub-section on his views on national security, which are generally described as hawkish. Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Nick-D, cheers for your feedback and I'll try and see what I can do over the coming week. Re: the page having been previously infected by persons with undisclosed COIs, I think you're entirely correct. During the PR, GA and this process, I've exercised a bit of material that was obvious WP:OR, which I imagine landed in the article from those persons. I'm not sure if it has all been exorcised as yet, but it's getting there. TarnishedPath^talk 08:14, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Nick-D, I think I've gone through and addressed all of the above, with the exception of your last dot point. The issue I'm seeing with the last dot point is that such a section, if too large would duplicate material from elsewhere (Particularly the China section, which I've already reduced in size). I'm thinking it may be possible to make a sub-section on national security and then to make the China sub-section a sub-section of the national security sub-section. In the way I'm thinking I'd probably only write a paragraph between the national security and China sub-section headings. Thoughts? TarnishedPath^talk 10:28, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for my slow response - I was out of town. Those changes look good, and I'm happy to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Nick-D cheers, I've been in China for a week anyway so no drama with any delays. TarnishedPath^talk 08:41, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Source review – pass

@TarnishedPath: There are 102 citations, using the mixed reference system. While I am not aware of policy dictating a preference on organizing the citations, one in which the source information is segregated from the main text is preferable because it helps with editing and spotting reference errors; more experienced editors can weight in on this one, but speaking from personal experience it is worth the effort especially for larger articles (this is comment is not part of the review).

I reviewed this version

• #2a Y it mentions that he was born in Wangaratta in 1982, but it does not provide date of birth
  • #3 Y it provides the date of birth
• #2a Y it mentions that he attended Scots College since he was 5
• #7 N "Old Boy News": I do not think this is a relevant source, it reads more like WP:PROMO; I suggest to remove it

Removed. TarnishedPath^talk 07:08, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• #2e Y it mentions that he joined the Liberal Party in 2013
• #6c Y the source provides Charles Bean’s history of the Anzacs
• #17 Y
• #28 ? Maybe not accessible but it needs an archive url and date

@A.Cython: we can't add a archive for this one. I've not been able to find it on ProQuest and Internet Archive doesn't work on it. It is available through archive.today; however, that is now deprecated/blacklisted and it won't let me provide you with a link here. Please let me know if you can't find it and want me to email you the link. TarnishedPath^talk 07:21, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• #30 Y contains the quote
• #33 Y confirmed the quotes
• #37a Y note that for quotes it is better to have a citation at the end of the statement.

I've added the citation at the end of the quoted statement that was in the middle of the paragraph. TarnishedPath^talk 07:28, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• #43 Y contains the quote
• #53 Y contains the info about noone is above the law
• #56 Y describes Andrew as the leader of the right wing of the Liberal Party
• #88 Y double check the urls (they appear mixed up and the archived version does not work)

I've updated the archive url. It worked for me, but had a prior revision of the article which displayed differently, so I updated it anyway. Let me know if you have any further issue. TarnishedPath^talk 07:35, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• #102 Y contains the information that he spends time with his family at Mandurah A.Cython(talk) 22:22, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

  @A.Cython, cheers for your time undertaking that source review. I've addressed all of your points above that needed addressing. Please let me know if there is anything else you would like addressed. TarnishedPath^talk 07:36, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  @TarnishedPath: Thanks. Good luck at FAC. A.Cython(talk) 15:54, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  @A.Cython thankyou. TarnishedPath^talk 15:58, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Simón Bolívar

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Wikipedian12512 (talk)

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

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

Comments by A.Cython

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

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

« Return to A-Class review list

2020 Salvadoran political crisis

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): PizzaKing13 (talk)

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

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

Siege of Ariminum (538)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): A.Cython (talk)

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

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

Support by Dumelow

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

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

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

Our article doesn't capitalise "Late Antiquity"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•  Done changed it to Middle East

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

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

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

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

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

•  Done

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

Are we talking Roman Imperial regalia here or something else?

•  Done I meant Roman

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

I would link barbarian for context

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

•  Done

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

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

•  Done

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

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

 Done rewrote it

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

Missing "the" before "Italian Peninsula"

•  Done

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

Presumably this should be "offensives"?

•  Done

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

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

•  Done Fixed

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

•  Done added

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

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

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

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

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

Missing "tower" after "siege"

•  Done added

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

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

•  Done broke the sentence into two

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

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

•  Done per your suggestion

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

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

•  Done removed

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

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

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

Read down to Aftermath section now

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

Sorry, I have likewise had a busy couple of weeks. Final comments below:

• No need to apologize, it is me who is thankful for investing your time in helping me to elevate this article.

• "In 539, Belisarius proceeded to secure strongholds in the surrounding region of Ravenna."

This reads better to me as "the region surrounding Ravenna"

•  Done

• "The stratagem spooked Justinian"

From the context I have presumed he was wary that Belisarius had ambitions for the Western Empire, but might be worth making it clear what he was worried about

• Comment: We have no evidence that Belisarius had such ambitions, at least according to the story written by Procopius. Even when he had the chance to wear the purple when the Goths offered to him the crown of the Western Roman Empire in 540, he used their offer to capture the capital in the name of Justinian. It was Justinian's fear of a successful general because this was the Roman tradition for the succession of power. Opponents of Belisarius used this fear of Justinian for their own advancement, which is why Belisarius was recalled to Constantinople a couple of times to clear his name. The later stages of the war were completed by Narses, who was the chamberlain of the emperor and an eunuch (no royal ambitions), effectively solving the "popular general" problem by having a civil servant of no ambition for the throne to lead the imperial armies.
•  Done I provided a bit more context

• "The general's departure was also needed on the eastern front against the Persians in the upcoming Lazic War (541–562).[55] However, the premature departure of Belisarius and the failure of Justinian in appointing a sole commander-in-chief in Byzantine forces in Italy reignited the Gothic resistance and prolonged the Gothic War by more than a decade"

I would consider rewording this slightly as "The general's departure from Italy had been required so he could serve on the eastern front against the Persians in the upcoming Lazic War (541–562).[55] However, Belisarius's departure and the failure of Justinian to appoint a sole commander-in-chief of Byzantine forces in Italy reignited the Gothic resistance and prolonged the Gothic War by more than a decade"

•  Done per your suggestion

• I would add a sentence after this to indicate how the war ended and who was victorious
  •  Done expanded the sentence, it was a stalemate or indecisive.
• "Historians argued that Belisarius's actions during the Siege of Ariminum ... Specifically, they praise his ability as a commander"

I think you may fall foul of MOS:AWW here if you do not name the historians

•  Done

• "Historian J. B. Bury said"

Consistency. You name him as "John Bury" elsewhere. It would also be worth giving a date for Bury's opinion, he is not the most modern of the sources and his writing will well pre-date the 1958 date of the publication you cite.

• True, I am using a 1958 edition (there more modern ones) but the original is from 1923.
•  Done Changed the name to be consistent. I added the original year of publication to the citation + mentioned in the main body

• "Historian Ilkka Syvänne placed the break of the Siege of Ariminum as a prime example of Sun Tsu's principle of "Subjugating the enemy without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence."

I would consider rewording this: "Historian Ilkka Syvänne considers the breaking of the Siege of Ariminum to be a prime example of Sun Tsu's principle that "subjugating the enemy without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence.""

•  Done

• In the lead "In early 538 and during the Siege of Rome (537–538), the besieged Byzantine General Belisarius sent John the Sanguinary to raid Picenum region."

Would be better with "the" before "Picenum"

•  Done added

• "Belisarius wanted to avoid direct battle engagement because the Goths outnumbered the Byzantine forces."

I would go with "...wanted to avoid a direct engagement because..."

•  Done

• "moved to besiege Ariminum in March 538"

The main text doesn't give any dates for the start of the siege, the infobox says "late spring" which would be around May

•  Done Most sources that I knew when I wrote this did not include an exact date. It had to be after mid-March but before June, when Belisarius left Rome to meet Narses. Anyhow I made another search in the library and found one source that states the date, April. So I replaced the date in the infobox and it is mentioned in the main body along with a citation.

• I wasn't sure why notes b and c were separate as both discuss the size of the Gothic army, can they be combined into one note that is called up twice?
  •  Done Merged

That's everything from me, apologies for time taken to complete this, have been a bit busy offline - Dumelow (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Dumelow No apologies needed, we all have real life obligations. Thank you for your thorough constructive review, I really do appreciate this. I believe I have addressed your comments. If I missed something or I need to revisit something, please let me know. Again thank you. A.Cython(talk) 03:20, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Dumelow Let me know if you have other comments. Thank you. A.Cython(talk) 02:22, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, still catching up after being away for a bit. I've reviewed the your comments above and changes to the article and all looks good to me. Happy to support this nomination - Dumelow (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you for your constructive comments for both articles. I do appreciate your input. A.Cython(talk) 20:27, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

MIT Radiation Laboratory

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nickknack00 (talk)

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

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

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

Support from Hawkeye7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support Comments by A.Cython

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

Lead

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

Main body

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

Sections

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

Thanks for the close read!

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

Image review - pass

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

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

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

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

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

Source review - pass

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

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

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

Spot check

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

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

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

Support by Dumelow

Looking at the text

• "James Conant of Harvard,"

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

Y Done

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

Consider naming and linking him if possible

Y now named as Henry Guerlac

• "John Randall and Harry Boot at Birmingham University"

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

Y Changed to "University of Birmingham"

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

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

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

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

Y Removed "Allied."

• Ministry of Aircraft Production could be linked

Y

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

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

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

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

Do we know what caused these delays?

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

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

Comment: I've expanded the use of inflation-adjusted values, but I have not implemented comprehensively. I agree with conversions for aggregate estimates where a reader wants to think about. I see less need in cases where same-year figures are meant to be compared, such as "By 1946–1947, MIT's research budget of $8.3 million dwarfed its academic budget of $4.7 million, a relationship that would persist."

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

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

 Done Added link.

• "a secure 10,000-square-foot space"

Provide a metric conversion (also recurs later)

Y Implemented

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

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

You've not previously mentioned the OSRD

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

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

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

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

I would clarify which Loomis this was referring to

Y The new paragraph structure should address this.

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

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

Y Reformatted as requested

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

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

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

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

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

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

Y Done

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

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

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

Might be worth addng the date of the surrender for context

Y Done

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

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

Y Done.

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

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

Y Done, including an appositive describing U.S. entry into war.

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

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

 Not done It is a separate set. SCR-582 was also ground-based like SCR-584, thus the same prefix, but its use was harbor surveillance, not gunlaying. I think the close numbering just means the Signal Corps adopted both systems around the same time (late 1941). I cover it here because it was the lab's first effort at "crash" manufacturing, but the sources don't give it full treatment that they give to surveillance systems like MEW. I will red-link it, since it has modest coverage in several radar histories.

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

Y. Now reads "To prepare combat-ready radar systems, the laboratory itself required restructuring"

Read down to "Radar navigation and control systems"

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

Y Done, with some further revisions to make these differences clearer.

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

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

Y I've modified to describe each by frequency. The issue here is that the citation uses mixed modes.

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

Y The article now gives a fuller explanation of the practical issues with side lobes and Alvarez' mitigaton. The alternating dipoles were a step towards the phased array, but my understanding is that this was only fully realized in his work on Ground Controlled Approach.

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

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

Y Other stations lacked a radar fix, but had voice contact. I've rewritten as: " On 20 March, before its communications were installed, trainee operators tracked a formation 270 kilometres (170 mi) out over the Atlantic. A telephone call to a nearby aircraft communications station, which could not see the aircraft, identified them as fourteen B-17s carrying 140 men, lost and preparing to ditch. The pilots were given their position and vectored home."

• Ninth Air Force, Invasion of Elba can be linked

 Done

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

What was Arnold commanding?

 Done I've clarified that he was commanded the U.S. Army Air Forces at this point.

• "a 3,000-pound explosive charge"

Provide a metric conversion

 Done

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

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

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

"wolfpacks" instead of "wolfspack"?

 Done Both amended.

• There's a duplicate link on Loran

 Done Removed

• Our article doesn't capitalise plan position indicator

 Done Adjusted to lower case. My sources vary in capitalization, but lower case seems consistent on Wikipedia.

• Mid-Atlantic gap can be linked

 Done Added

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

 Done Removed. Holdover from drafting, thank you for catching it.

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

Elsewhere you have used the day-first order

 Done Now consistent with other uses.

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

 Done added

• Pathfinder (USAAF) probably worth linking

 Done added

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

 Done added

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

Presumably this is strategic bombing missions

 Done Buderi does say "90 percent of bombing missions," but I agree that this is reasonable inference.

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

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

Oil campaign of World War II is a worthwhile link

 Done I have modified as "The radar proved essential when Allied strategic bombing began to target oil infrastructure."

• Ploiești could be linked

 Done Added

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

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

 Done conversions added in all cases. Sources are American English, so I also assume short tons.

• "On July 6–7, 1945,"

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

 Done converted. Hopefully the last of these conversions.

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

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

 Done, but outside quote

• Louis Ridenour can be linked

 Done linked

• Servomotor can be linked

 Done linked

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

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

 Done Fair, changed to "requisitioned"

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

Clarify if the Rad Lab was involved with this development

 Done Okay, I have added a footnote noting its parallel development by the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab

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

Worth a link to Tactical bombing

 Done added link

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

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

How do you watch through a loudspeaker?

 Done Changed to "...listened to a loudspeaker."

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

 Done Swapped

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

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

 Done Added.

Read down to Postwar legacy section

• "Because the Series was produced with federal funds"

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

 Done Yes, that seems right as a proper name.

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

 Done Agreed and added. Full obits in WaPo and Physics Today

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

  You haven't introduced who Buderi is

 Done Revised as "Technology historian Robert Buderi"

• Link US presidents Kennedy, Truman, Eisenhower and Nixon

 Done

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

Comment: I have modified to "A 2023 study in the American Economic Review. Publication in a top-4 econ journal is a better claim to notability than the specific authors.

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

Comment: I've linked Hawk missile. I'm red-linking Route 128 technology corridor instead of the highway article. "Route 128" is a metonym for the cluster of technology firms built in the Boston suburbs after World War II. There are a collection of books, dissertations, and websites dedicated to this history, which I think fall outside the roadway coverage. Open to suggestions about how to handle this.

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

 Done I've removed this mention.

• Link Nobel Prize

 Done

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

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

Comment: I pared this back. The original sentence discussing both technologies is drawn from Buderi, who gives some broader history of the maser in the wartime radar research ecosystem. In my view, it is too oblique to credit directly to the Rad Lab. Maser developers took place at Bell Labs and Columbia, and possibly NDRC/Rad Lab contracts contributed. But I don't come away with confidence that the technology can be attributed to the MIT Rad Lab activities.

• Link Open sesame for context

 Done

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

Comment: I've modified the claim to be: "a long-range radio navigation system used globally for marine and air navigation after the war." I've also expanded the distinctions between LORAN and other wartime radio navigation systems: "Loran was one of several long-range radio navigation systems used during the war, among them the British Gee and Decca Navigator and the German Sonne–Consol. Loran was the only of these systems to cover multiple continents, and remained in service longer than any other wartime radio navigation system," which is drawn from Brown 1999.

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

 Done. I've modified this lead sentence to read: "Equipment designed by the Rad Lab accounted for 48 percent of the in American wartime spending on radar, or approximately $1.35 billion (equivalent to $24 billion in 2025)", consolidating this claim with one later in the same paragraph. The refers to total military contract volume during the war, which is covered in the sentence after the one you highlight in "Wartime scale". The verbatim quote from Brown (p.174) is: "By the end of the war the United States had spent $2819 million on radar, 48% being for equipment of Rad Lab design."

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

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

 Done I've added the following sentence: "Ridenour secured Army and Navy declassification for each volume.". I've narrowed the lead claim to be more textual: "The 28-volume MIT Radiation Laboratory Series compiled and declassified the lab's discoveries, becoming a standard reference in postwar electronics development."

As background, the Rad Lab published several hundred classified technical reports to the NDRC ahead of the Series project. The Series effort was an effort to consolidate the research and open the base of knowledge through clearance.

That concludes my review - Dumelow (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Dumelow: Ready to support now? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Nickknack00, I don't think you have responded to my comments of 29 June? - Dumelow (talk) 06:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Dumelow Correct, buried in a non-volunteer writing project this month. Will try and knock out remainder incrementally over next two weeks, and will tag you both when I'm done. Nickknack00 (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

No worries, take whatever time you need - Dumelow (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Dumelow, I've now responded fully to the review. Thanks for the close and thorough reading. Let me know if any responses are wanting. Nickknack00 (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Dumelow: Ready to support now? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry all, have been unexpectedly away for all of August. I've reviewed the replies above and agree with the changes and/or reasoning so am happy to support this nomination - Dumelow (talk) 07:23, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, @Dumelow! Very helpful review. Nickknack00 (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Menéndez's revolution

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): PizzaKing13 (talk)

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

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

Support Comments by A.Cython

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

Lead & infobox

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

• Yes per MOS:NONENGITALIC

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

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

Main body

• amnesty.Menéndez a space is missing

• Fixed

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

• Fixed

• longest lasting → longest-lasting

• Fixed

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

• Fixed

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

• Changed

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

• Changed

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

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

Aftermath

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

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

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

Sources

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

• Fixed

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

• Moved

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

• Done

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

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

Support by Dumelow

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

• Linked

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

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

• Reworded

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

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

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

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

As generals these people are presumably notable and worth red linking

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

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

Should be "forced", not "forces"

• Fixed

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

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

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

• Reworded

• "Menéndez rejected the 1885 constitution"

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

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

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

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

• Added

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

probably worth mentioning that he was unopposed

• Added

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

• None that I could find

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

MOS:'S requires this to be Rivas's

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

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

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

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

Ahuachapán

Armenia

Atiquizaya

Chahuapa

Chalatenango

Coatepeque

Cojutepeque

El Bejuco

Ilobasco

Izalco

La Unión

Nahuizalco

Nueva San Salvador

San Andrés

San Salvador

Santa Ana

Santo Domingo

Sonsonate

Suchitoto

caption here

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

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

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of 42nd Street

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): History6042 (talk)

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

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

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

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

Hawkeye7

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

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

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

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

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

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

My source says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Gog the Mild: Supporting now? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Sturmvogel_66

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

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

Source review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image review

• File:Australian sign at Forty Second Street on Crete 1941 (AWM P03731 001) (cropped).jpg, File:Damien Parer and Ron Williams stopped for a tea break on 42nd Street.jpg: PD AustraliaGov - okay
• File:Battle of crete.svg - CC 3.0 - okay

All images have appropriate licences.

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments by A.Cython

@History6042: Not really confident in modern warfare knowledge but I will try to review this one.

• join in on the attack (i think the meaning is preserved with less words)
• 450 metres convert template?
• Maori officer's, account Greek → Maori officer's account, Greek (move the comma)
• Aera note that this means in Greek "air", though it could be described as "Like the Wind", perhaps adding this would help the reader as most non-Greeks would not know what it means.
• The Australians too, were ordered to return to the road by Walter Miller, commander of the C Company, after he realized his troops had no cover and that they had already pushed the Germans far enough back. I find it hard to follow this sentence, care to rewrite?
• "suspicious" many → "suspicious" that many
• McGeoch's patrol were → McGeoch's patrol was
• and running south → and ran south
• Tsikalaria lined → Tsikalaria, lined (add comma)
• south east → south-east (add a dash, as this is how write elsewhere in the article)
• Soviet Union wikilink, this is not an existing country
• Retimo initially I thought this was a spelling error, but, correct me if I am wrong, you meant Rethymno. Apparently "Retimo" is Rethymno in Italian. To avoid confusion perhaps it is better to keep the WP:COMMONNAME as used in English and add a wikilink (note that you have Rethymno airfields higher up in the paragraph)
• On 21 May the first landings began I am confused. Elsewhere you say that it was on the 20 May when the Germans launched the attack. The relevant citation says 21 May, but elsewhere where I briefly looked says 20 May.
• (however it was known locally as Tsivalarion Road) perhaps make this an explanatory note using the efn template or something equivalent
• this claim was denied by the Australian official historian Gavin Long in his book Greece, Crete and Syria. He accepted that in the midst of the battle soldiers were clubbed and bayoneted. However, he denied Anzacs had killed the surrendering Germans. Walker also denied Germans had been killed illegally. I think this needs a relevant citation/attribution
• Some sources have publisher+location while other have only publisher info. Choose one format and keep it consistent. For example, Fort, Adrian (2009) does not have location
  • (optional) It might be helpful to separate the sources between different categories, i.e., books, journals, reports, web.
• is it possible to place a number to A few Greek soldiers? A.Cython(talk) 04:25, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Current reassessments

Please add new requests below this line