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

Manhattan Project feed materials program

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Manhattan Project feed materials program (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is an article I had been thinking about since I began working on improving the Manhattan Project articles a decade ago. It fills a gap in detailing an important but often neglected aspect of the project, namely how it acquired the vital minerals, particularly uranium, to enable the creation of nuclear weapons. That story is not without drama in its own right, as it moves from Canada's Arctic region to the Congo in Africa. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

HNLMS Kortenaer (1927)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): GGOTCC (talk)

HNLMS Kortenaer (1927) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Two months ago, the Dutch Navy was notably absent from WikiProject Ships’ Good Article list, which left a significant gap in the Netherlands’ role in the early Pacific War on this site. In the past two months, I have tried to change that. Recently promoted as a GA, Kortenaer is my best article yet and reflects the Dutch experience in the region due to a series of colonial tribulations, unfortunate events, and destruction (twice!) I hope to improve the article even more with more people looking it over! GGOTCC 01:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

• "While she was intended to participate in the Battle of Badung Strait, she ran aground while leaving port." The second "while" is jarring here. Consider re-wording.
• "postwar period" doesn't point to the correct period. Switch the link to "interwar period".
• "Simultaneously" is too exact here; suggest something like "Around this time"
• Link "destroyer"
• "The Netherlands subsequently adopted a modified version of this design" "subsequently" doesn't do much here; suggest deleting.
• "the latter four displaced slightly more and furnished with minesweeping equipment" "were furnished"
• "Delayed by a trans-Atlantic crossing, the two ships arrived to late: the rebels had left Curaçao, landed in Venezuela, and were promptly defeated as many of the stollen rounds were blanks." How does a trans-Atlantic crossing delay them? Didn't they have to cross the Atlantic?

  "to late" should be "too late"

  semi-colin instead of colon

  Unlink Venezuala

  "stollen" should be "stolen"

• "several illegal Japanese-operated fishing vessels and arrested the crew." "crews"
• "Following the German invasion of the Netherlands, war-time measures" Add a date, and shift this sentence into the next paragraph

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

All done, thank you very much! GGOTCC 23:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review - pass

• fn 2 requires the date
• fn 26 requires access date
• Sources are not in alphabetic order
• Chesneau & Gardiner (1980), Kehn (2017), Stille (2019) location?
• "Annapolis, Md" Don't abbreviate the American states
• "Verification of the Location and Condition of the Dutch Shipwrecks in the Java Sea" uses a different date format (although I prefer this one myself)
• Is Cox 2014 or 2015?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I added most of the feedback. A few of the last issues were introduced by a user after my nomination as part of a multi-page dispute. If they don't fix the issues that I laid out on the talk page, I will do it myself. GGOTCC 23:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

First Jewish–Roman War

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Mariamnei (talk)

First Jewish–Roman War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm nominating this article for A-Class review following its recent promotion to GA, with the intention of eventually submitting it for Featured Article status. The topic is of considerable historical importance: it covers a major conflict that shaped both Jewish and Roman history (the first among the three major Jewish–Roman wars), and includes some of the most well-documented and thoroughly researched episodes in ancient military history. Given its significance and clear military focus, I believe it's highly relevant to the scope of this project, and I'd greatly appreciate any detailed feedback to help strengthen it further. Mariamnei (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

Great work! Some comments:

• "moderate government" sounds a bit WP:EASTEREGG-y and non-WP:NPOV. Suggest replacing with the link, Judean provisional government.

• Changed to "provisional government" — I figured "Judean" is implied. Mariamnei (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Not entirely sure about referring to Vespasian as "General"

• Switched “General” to “commander”, thought about “future emperor” too, but that felt a bit clunky in context. Please let me know if you disagree! Mariamnei (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Nero is linked twice in the Lead

• Fixed! Mariamnei (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Suggest adding the date of the Bar Kochba Revolt

• Done! Mariamnei (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• "as the province of Judaea." Why is Judea italicized here?

• It was first written using the Latinized spelling, but since the article now consistently uses the anglicized form, I've removed the italics. Mariamnei (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Judaea under the Romans: "High Priest" and "Roman Syria" are doubly linked

• Fixed! Mariamnei (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Why is Claudius "Emperor Claudius" but Nero and Caligula just "Nero" and "Caligula"?

• Fixed! all are now introduced with their titles on first mention. Mariamnei (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Josephus is mentioned, but not introduced or linked.

• Added a brief introduction and link: "a Jewish commander who became a historian after his capture by the Romans." Mariamnei (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• " modern national liberation movements, citing their struggle to free Judaea, the minting of coins inscribed with "Israel," and the adoption of the "freedom of Israel" era as examples." It is not clear here whether the coins were minted by the Ancient Judeans or the modern national liberation movements

• now reads modern national liberation movements, citing the rebels' struggle to free Judaea, their minting of coins inscribed with "Israel," and their adoption of the "freedom of Israel" era as examples, Hope that resolves the ambiguity! Mariamnei (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Outbreak of the rebellion: Agrippa II, Berenice, Perea are dups

• Fixed! Mariamnei (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Link cohort

• Done! Mariamnei (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Unlink "Bethoron Pass"

• Done! Mariamnei (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Do we have an article on what a talent was?

• Yep! Linked! Mariamnei (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• What is a "decisive ambush"?

• Removed 'decisive'. Mariamnei (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Scholars compare this defeat to the Roman defeat against the Germans in the Teutoburg Forest" That sounds like a stretch - part of one legion vs three complete, and the Romans retained control over most of the province.

• Regarding the comparison to Teutoburg Forest: good point. The original version noted the difference in scale: Scholars have compared this Roman failure to the disastrous Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 CE,[75][79] though the latter was much larger in scale, resulting in three times the losses.[83], but that was trimmed for brevity. Since much of this is already covered in the battle's own article, I've removed the sentence from here. Mariamnei (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Judean provisional government: High Priest, Jericho, Perea, Herod Antipas, Parthian Empire, Tyre, Acrabetene are dups

• Fixed! Mariamnei (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Vespasian's Galilee campaign: Now he his Emperor Nero

• Since we now introduce him as emperor earlier in the article, removing the title here. Mariamnei (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Alexandria and Akko-Ptolemais are dups

• Fixed! Mariamnei (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Civil war and coup in Jerusalem: Zealots, Joseph ben Gurion are dups

• Fixed! Mariamnei (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• "the leaders of Gadara, in Perea, sent a delegation to Vespasian to surrender: Suggest "offering to surrender"

• Fixed! Mariamnei (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Vespasian's campaign in Judea: Jericho, Thamna, Yavneh, Samaria, Dead Sea

• Fixed! Mariamnei (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Vespasian visited the Dead Sea and tested its buoyancy by throwing bound non-swimmers into the water". He had a sense of humour.

• A real pioneer of the scientific method... assuming ethics weren't part of it. 🤷‍♀️ Mariamnei (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I've done this myself. They were in no danger, because on the Dead Sea you'll bob like a cork. You can't swim in it really, because you float on top of the water, so usual swimming strokes don't work. You can stand up in the water too. They might have panicked before they realised what was going on. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

more to come... Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Vespasian was officially recognized as emperor in the winter of 69/70" By whom? And do we have a more specific date than "winter"? (MOS:SEASON)

• Changing to With Vitellius, the reigning emperor, dead on 20 December 69, the Senate conferred imperial authority on Vespasian the next day. That should clear up both points! Mariamnei (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Siege of Jerusalem: suggest splitting the first paragraph after "John's faction infiltrated the Temple's inner courtyards and subdued the Zealots"

• Split, thanks! Mariamnei (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Dup links: Antonia Fortress, Caesarea Philippi, Berytus, Herodium, Lod, Yavneh, Tarichaea, Gabara, Sepphoris, Tiberias, Transjordan, High Priesthood, Sanhedrin, Ein Gedi, Pliny the Elder, Domitian, Suetonius, Samaritis. Egypt, Antioch, Cyrenaica, Qumran, Philip S. Alexander, Roman Colony, Roman citizenship, Tacitus, Suetonius, Rabbinic literature

• Done! Mariamnei (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• What is a "relative majority"?

• It means the largest group overall (even if they don't make up more than half the population of the country) Mariamnei (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Link Ala (Roman cavalry unit)

• Done! Mariamnei (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Jews ceased to be a political entity, resembling a nation-state for almost two millennia" I think the placement of the comma here makes this read the opposite of what was intended.

• You're right! I removed the comma Mariamnei (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• "This idea appears in New Testament texts, and is echoed in the Gospels" Aren't the Gospels part of the New Testament?

• Did a copy edit to make it clearer, thanks! Mariamnei (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Move to support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Ben Roberts-Smith

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): TarnishedPath (talk)

Ben Roberts-Smith (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. Roberts-Smith is one of the most decorated Australian soldiers, who has been awarded the Victoria Cross for Australia. Any and all comments welcome! Thanks TarnishedPath^talk 01:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

I didn't expect to see this article here.

• The fourth paragraph of the lead is overly-detailed; I think it should be cut back to the size of the other three paragraphs. Suggest something like this:

  In October 2017, Roberts-Smith's actions in Afghanistan came under scrutiny when it was reported that he had decided to hunt down and shoot enemies that he presumed had spotted his patrol. In August 2018, he commenced defamation proceedings against the media outlets involved in reporting alleged acts of bullying and war crimes committed by him. In June 2023, Justice Anthony Besanko dismissed his defamation case, ruling that it was proven to the standard required in Australian defamation law that Roberts-Smith murdered four Afghans and had broken the rules of military engagement.

• In the lead, 'Enemies' looks like MOS:SCAREQUOTES, which is not permitted.

• The MOS currently says that the first sentence should not contain post-nominals, but that is currently subject to an RfC (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC Regarding MOS:POSTNOM) so no action required.
• Unlink Fiji and Iraq. (WP:OVERLINK) Consider instead linking Operation Quickstep and Security Detachment Iraq (Australia) instead, which I think the reader would find more informative.

• "[He] was part of personal security detachments in Iraq throughout 2005 and 2006". Not throughout 2006, only for a (four or five month?) tour of duty. (Note that the article also says that he was in Afghanistan "throughout" 2006) Suggest changing "throughout" to "in" in both cases.

• "Careful consideration is being given to the additional content and context to be included in collection items on display" The use of present tense hits a wrong note here.

• Link The Sydney Morning Herald, Seven Network, Fairfax Media (on first use),

• Corporate career: split paragraph at "In April 2015"

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, for the fourth para of the lead I added a couple of sentences to what you suggested:

In October 2017, Roberts-Smith's actions in Afghanistan came under scrutiny when it was reported that he had decided to hunt down and shoot enemies that he presumed had spotted his patrol. In August 2018, he commenced defamation proceedings against the media outlets involved in reporting alleged acts of bullying and war crimes committed by him. In June 2023, Justice Anthony Besanko dismissed his defamation case, ruling that it was proven to the standard required in Australian defamation law that Roberts-Smith murdered four Afghans and had broken the rules of military engagement. An appeal to a Full Court of the Federal Court, comprising three judges, commenced on 5 February 2024; on 16 May 2025, the appeal was unanimously dismissed.

Please let me know if that satisfies your comment regarding it previously being over detailed.

Regarding linking Seven Network, I couldn't find it used in the article. All instances of Seven are in relation to Seven Queensland or Seven Brisbane. Please let me know if I've missed something.

Please let me know if the rest of the edits I performed are what you had in mind or if there are any other areas for improvement. TarnishedPath^talk 01:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

That's fine. I thought they would link to Seven Network. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, I've also moved the post nominals from the first sentence to the infobox until such time as there is consensus for change to MOS:POSTNOM. I think I've made all the other changes you suggested. Was there anything else you suggest? TarnishedPath^talk 05:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Ben Roberts-Smith-2015.jpg: Wikipedian-created image, File:Ben Roberts-Smith medals December 2011 (cropped).JPG: Wikipedian-created image - okay
• File:Corporal Ben Roberts-Smith VC investiture (5).jpg, File:Corporal Ben Roberts-Smith VC investiture.jpg - link rotten - consider adding archive link

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, those two files that you've advised the links are rotten (http://old.gg.gov.au/events/98th-australian-victoria-cross-awarded), I've not been able to find an archive of that page using Wayback Machine. There is a page on the gg.gov.au website which deals with the event (https://www.gg.gov.au/about-governor-general/governor-generals-program/corporal-ben-roberts-smith-vc-investiture-visit-flood-affected-areas-carnarvon-western-australia) but notably there are no images. A reverse image search on the images shows them being used by heaps of news agencies. I would presume they took the images either from the gg.gov.au website or from us and haven't attributed, but I can't be sure of that. Do you recommend removal of the images? TarnishedPath^talk 07:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Support Nick-D

Nice work with this article - I suspect that Roberts-Smith is the most difficult Australian VC recipient to write about. I'd like to offer the following comments:

• Citations aren't needed in the lead

 Done

• "In October 2017, Roberts-Smith's actions in Afghanistan came under scrutiny when it was reported that he had decided to hunt down and shoot enemies that he presumed had spotted his patrol" - this seems to under-state the allegations (after all, there's nothing wrong with a soldier killing enemies)

I've changed it to "In October 2017, Roberts-Smith's conduct in Afghanistan came under scrutiny after reports that he'd tracked down and killed a teenager he suspected had spotted his patrol." Please let me know if this is better as far as not understating the allegation.

• It's generally best to not describe combatants as "enemies" as is repeatedly done in the 'Afghanistan' section. The medal citation refers to the people he was fighting in the second para as being "Militia" for instance.

 Done

• "a patrol second-in-command" - say what a SASR patrol comprises

I've added this is a footnote. Please let me know if this works.

I've also just moved the note to the first usage of "patrol" outside of the lead. Again please let me know if this works.

• The decision to award the VC to Roberts-Smith was raised during defamation proceedings where it was revealed that several former and serving members of the SASR had questioned the decision - what concerns did they raise over this?

 Done

• The 'Post career' section title is awkward, and this section doesn't really work as it's mainly about events that occurred later

I've moved some of the material to the Afghanistan section (the two sentences covering the commissioning of a painting and the uniform) and I've moved the rest to the end of the judgment section. Please see Special:Diff/1294367558. Please let me know if this works better.

• "The uniform he wore in Afghanistan is also displayed in the War Memorial" - surely it's only one of the uniforms he wore? The AWM collection database should explain the significance of this particular uniform.

I wasn't able to find details in the AWM collection, however I did find from https://www.watoday.com.au/national/act/super-sized-mannequin-required-for-victoria-cross-recipient-ben-roberts-smiths-uniform-20131105-2wyfl.html that it was his combat uniform.

He would have worn lots of uniforms; I'd suggest tweaking the text to say that its "a uniform" he wore in Afghanisan. It's irritating that the AWM collection database doesn't list this item, but it does not that a helmet in its collection was worn by Robert-Smith in his VC action. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nick-D, updated to "A combat uniform ..." TarnishedPath^talk 07:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

As an aside, I did see the helmet and a couple of images of paintings on AWM's website and thought about using the painting images, but unfortunately they have a CC BY-NC license. TarnishedPath^talk 08:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• "In 2023, Kim Beazley, Chair of the Australian War Memorial Council, acknowledged "the gravity of the decision in the Ben Roberts-Smith VC MG defamation case and its broader impact on all involved in the Australian community".[38] Beazley added that careful consideration was being given to the additional content and context to be included in collection items on display" - this seems out of place as it's well before the defamation case is discussed. The way in which this material is presented somewhat obscures the impact which the allegations against Roberts-Smith and the rulings in the defamation cases he initiated have had on his reputation - he went from being a national hero to someone who is generally regarded as a disgrace.

I think me moving material around, as commented on above may have address this. Please let me know if you like something more.

• "In October 2013, when Roberts-Smith announced that he was leaving the Army" - the article earlier says this was when he left the full-time Army, but he remained a reservist

 Done

• I'd suggest noting at the outset how Roberts-Smith got the job at Seven Queensland

Please see Special:Diff/1294374563 and Special:Diff/1294374722. Please let me know if that's what you had in mind.

• "as well as a female companion's allegations that she was subjected to an act of domestic violence in Australia" - this is too vague: the story stated that it has been alleged that Roberts-Smith committed domestic violence against a woman he was having an affair with.

 Done

• "it was reported that Kerry Stokes (Roberts-Smith's former employer and financial backer) would pay most of these costs to his commercial rival, Nine" - my understanding is that Stokes was required to do this by a court ruling - the current wording makes it sound voluntary Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done

@Nick-D, thanks for your feedback. I'll try and address as much as I can tomorrow night and I'll tag you when done to see if you have any further suggestions/feedback. TarnishedPath^talk 14:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Dot points 1 - 5 done. I'll do some more work on the article tomorrow. TarnishedPath^talk 11:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nick-D, I'm now gone through all of the dot points you provided and made changes. Please let me know if what I've done is what you had in mind and if you have any further guidance. TarnishedPath^talk 10:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Support but please see my comment above. Great work with this article. If you're interested in developing it to FA standard, I'd also suggest adding a section on how the public perception of Roberts-Smith has changed over time - he's probably the only VC recipient who has gone from being widely seen as a hero to being widely seen as a villain, though he retains a degree of public support and support from some very rich backers (which is interesting in its own right). Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nick-D thanks for your time reviewing the article and your guidance. If/when I do decide to try and develop it to FA, I will see about implementing your suggestion. TarnishedPath^talk 08:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Operation Matterhorn

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Operation Matterhorn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Operation Matterhorn was a World War II project to bomb Japan into submission from bases in China. It ranks right up there with the most fantastic projects of the war. It arose from a political and military impetus to keep China in the war, and a belief among air power advocates that Japan could be defeated by air power, without the need for action by the ground and naval forces. I came to it from an interest in the logistics involved. After working on the article on Operation Matterhorn logistics, I overhauled this, the main article. It has recently passed a GA review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Nick-D

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

• Regarding the first para, my understanding is that the main goal of Matterhorn was to bomb Japan, though attacks on other locations were part of the plan. If this is correct, I'd suggest tweaking the wording to note that Japan was the main objective.

  Y Tweaked the wording to emphasise this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• The lead doesn't note the raids on Formosa, which as the map in the infobox shows were repeatedly conducted

  Y Added to the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• "a quarter of Japanese divisions" - this wording is a bit unclear

  Y Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• "The B-29's 141-foot (43 m) wing span was considerably wider than the 104-foot (32 m) of the B-17, the next largest aircraft in the inventory, and a fully-laden B-29 weighed about 70 short tons (64 t), nearly twice as much as a B-17." - this seems unnecessary, as the article has already discussed the size and sophistication of the aircraft.

  Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• The material on the early raids seems over-detailed in comparison to that on the later raids, even allowing for their greater importance
• "Despite this, the results were impressive" - I'd suggest using different phrasing here, given the text is describing the firebombing of a city. Are figures for the numbers of civilian casualties available? - they must have been significant.

  I don't have a reliable source for civilian casualties. I found this Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• The article's coverage of the final raids against Singapore and other locations in South East Asia, such as the Bombing of Kuala Lumpur (1945) seems rather brief in comparison to that of other operations.

  The intention was to put this into another article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• The "End of Matterhorn" section also seems to wrongly state that there were further B-29 raids on Palembang. I think that the only part of the NEI targeted in this period were the islands close to Singapore.

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

HMS Hyperion (1807)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk)

HMS Hyperion (1807) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hyperion started her career in 1808 under the command of a captain so poor he attempted to attack a rock and caused passengers to abandon the ship in fear of his abilities. In 1810 the ship participated in a confusing diplomatic incident at Haiti in which several crew members were killed by a gun battery, and two years later she lost a thirty-seven ship convoy she was escorting through Atlantic storms. In 1820 the actions of her captain saw the ship removed from the South America Station to avoid another diplomatic incident, this time with Chile. The ship's varied career ended with a period of anti-piracy duties followed by six years as a base for smuggling patrols. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

Just a few comments.

• "In February 1811 an incident at Gonaïves resulted in Haitians killing three members of Hyperion's crew," Comma after "1811"

• Done.

• "Brodie died of a illness probably caught there." "an illness"

• Done.

• Convert knots to kph, not mph (MOS:METRIC)

• Done.

• Convert fathoms to metres

• Done.

• "Hyperion took on board specie worth $1,500,000 (equivalent to $30,811,957 in 2024)" Suggest rounding to six figures

• Done.

• Link paid off

• This is done earlier on in the article.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Hi, thanks for taking a look and apologies for the delay in responding! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Support. Pinging @Hog Farm: Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

HF

Please ping me once Hawkeye's review is resolved and I will take a look. Hog Farm _Talk 04:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why the Hore version of the Haiti incident is attributed, but not the Cole version?
• Why did the news of the discovery of the South Shetlands need to be embargoed? Was this to allow for British colonial claiming?

This is in good shape and I anticipate supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 03:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Action at Sihayo's Kraal

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Dumelow (talk)

Action at Sihayo's Kraal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't have as much time to edit on here as I used to but I've been focusing a bit on improving existing articles rather than creating new. Catlemur kindly reviewed this article on the first engagement of the 1879 Anglo-Zulu War for GA back in 2020. I've had a read through and think it could be a candidate for A-class (and possibly onwards to FA), but it's been four years since I brought anything here so please feel free to disabuse me of that notion! Any and all feedback welcomed - Dumelow (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

Looks good. Some comments:

• "The action is believed to have led Cetshwayo to attack Chelmsford's force in preference to the two other British columns operating in Zululand." You haven't told the reader who Cetshwayo was.

Done and linked, I also clarified that he ordered the attack and didn't lead it himself - Dumelow (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• "1st battalion", "3rd regiment" Capitalise "Battalion" and "Regiment" when in use as a unit title.

Corrected, I think I got them all - Dumelow (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Also: you linked "battalion" on the second use instead of the first

Switched - Dumelow (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Great White Queen" Consider linking Queen Victoria

Good idea, done - Dumelow (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• "In the meantime Russell's mounted contingent had also reached the heights." Comma after "meantime"

Added, there was also one in "Action" where I did the same - Dumelow (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• "The Zulus were driven off by 10.00 am" should be "10:00 am" (MOS:TIME)

Done - Dumelow (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for looking it over Hawkeye7, I think I've addressed all your comments - Dumelow (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Supporting. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

HF

I will try to review this later this week. Hog Farm _Talk 20:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• The lead mentions 40 Zulu killed, but the aftermath has only an estimated 30, which seems to be the max from the description of the battle as well (12 in the gorge + 10-18 on the heights)

Good spot, the British narrative of the campaign (Rothwell) is more definitive stating "the losses on each side were as follows: Zulu, 30 killed, 4 wounded, 10 prisoners; British forces, 2 natives killed, 1 officer and 1 non-commissioned officer wounded, and 12 natives wounded"; I've amended the numbers in the article to suit and corrected a typo in the page number I had for Rothwell - Dumelow (talk) 06:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• The lead uses the exact number of 22 British wounded, but the body places more uncertainty on this figure. The infobox has 20 NNC + 3 officers/NCOs

There's a bit of inconsistency in the sources, I've tried to settle on a minimum figure taken from the official British narrative and added a bit of detail in a footnote - Dumelow (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

This is in good shape and I expect to support once the casualty inconsistencies get sorted out. Hog Farm _Talk 02:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Hog Farm, some good points on consistency. I have tried to address them above - Dumelow (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks good; supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 03:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments Support - Zawed

Some comments:

• Possible add mention of the death of Mkumbikazulu kaSihayo in the lead? That section reads well otherwise.

Added in brackets in the sentence dealing with Zulu casualties - Dumelow (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Background: ...Cape of Good Hope they had previously shown...: should they be it (referring to the British government)?

I think this might be a British English thing, "the government" can be plural or singular depending on context; to me "it" sounds wrong here. On review I wasn't happy with how these sentences flowed so have restructured and think I have avoided this issue - Dumelow (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Background: ...returned to Chelmsford's camp by that evening, he reported...: not sure about that comma. Is this be the start of new sentence or perhaps it should be a semi-colon?

I went with a semi-colon but happy to split into a new sentence if you think it's needed - Dumelow (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Background: Chelmsford determined to attack Sihayo's Kraal: lower case on the Kraal?

Yes, you're right. I had been wildly inconsistent throughout the article. Now lower case throughout and moved to that title - Dumelow (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Advance: looks fine
• Action: ...more gently sloping part of the Ngedla.: "...more gently sloping part of the hill"?

Agreed and changed - Dumelow (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Action: the entire 1st Battalion of the 3rd Regiment of the Natal Native Contingent: use the abbrev for NNC, since you have introduced in the Advance section. There is another mention of the Natal Native Contingent later in this section as well.

Changed - Dumelow (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Action: ...attempt to seize the cattle, they would be supported by three... : "...attempt to seize the cattle, they would be supported by three"

Changed - Dumelow (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Action: a little after 8.00 am.: inconsistent treatment of time i.e. am. vs a.m. There is an example in the last para of this section.

Good spot. I think I've now standardised them all to be without the full stops - Dumelow (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Action: Black moved between parties of the NNC trying, largely in vain, to encourage them forwards.[30]: I just wonder if nb3 might be better placed here?

Moved - Dumelow (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Action: losses of 10-18 dead: endash instead of a hyphen I think? Also write the numbers for consistency with how numbers are dealt with in aftermath section

Written out using "and" instead of a dash - Dumelow (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Burning of the kraal: looks fine
• Afermath: In nb4, "belonged to the 2nd battalion", should the battalion be capitalised?

Yes, I think so. Changed - Dumelow (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Aftermath: He had left just 200-300 men: endash instead of a hyphen I think?

Changed - Dumelow (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Interpretation: looks fine

The article looks in great shape, just some nitpicks. Zawed (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much Zawed, I think I've responded to all your points above - Dumelow (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Zawed, any further comments to come from your end? The review is very close to closing now. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

This all looks good, have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• File:Escarmouche de la Batsche.jpg, File:LL1882 pg247 RORKE'S DRIFT, BUFFALO RIVER.jpg, File:Sihayos kraal action map (cropped).png, File:Adventure-travel-exploration (1909) (17318995293).jpg, File:RegionPMB 1898 Herd of Cattle.jpg - old image - PD - okay

• File:Isandhlwana.jpg - old art - okay

• File:Sihayo kraal satellite.png - NASA image - PD - okay

• File:Natal native contingent.jpg - UK PD -okay

• File:View of Fugitives Drift.JPG - Wikipedian image - CC 3.0-SA - okay

• File:Hamilton-browne sihayos kraal Valda.jpg - US PD - probably okay

Source review

Dumelow, my comments:

• Duminy & Ballard 1981, Greaves 2004, Greaves 2012b, Rothwell 1989, and Snook 2010 are the only sources which have the locations of publication. You should either remove the locations from these sources or add them for all the other sources.
• How reliable are the following publishers: Windrow & Greene and Archival Publications?
• Link the following authors in the biblio: Ian Knight (historian), John Laband, Donald R. Morris?

Once the above are done, I can do the spot checks. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Tailhook scandal

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Tailhook scandal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... back in 2022, for test purposes, I asked the MilHistBot to select a couple of B-class articles it felt were FAC-worthy. This was one of two articles it chose. The article is about a convention in 1991 during which U.S. military officers engaged in public nudity, excessive alcohol intoxication, public sexual activity, and other lewd behavior in and around the convention hotel. In an earlier time - or the present day - this would have been unremarkable, but it was a scandal back in the early 1990s. Can artificial intelligence select worthy FAC candidates? Opinions sought. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

HF

I will try to review this soon but it will likely have to be in small batches over the course of several days. Hog Farm _talk 17:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: - Have you been able to review/vouch for the source-text integrity? I'm reluctant to conduct a full review if the source-text integrity hasn't been verified. I'm in the process of rewriting my very first GA back in 2020 where I didn't check the source-text integrity of existing text and most of it is having to be rewritten. Hog Farm _talk 17:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

It has been reviewed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• The lead - "officers were alleged to have sexually assaulted up to 83 women and seven men," has these all as sexual assaults, but the body has "The investigation concluded that 83 women and seven men had been assaulted, sexually or otherwise, at the conference" which opens up the possibilty of non-sexual assaults

  Y Deleted "sexually" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• I'm assuming the two uses in the references to "McMichal" are an error for "McMichael"?

  Y Yes. Corrected. (This is why I advocate the use of the {{sfn}} template.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Naval investigative agents interviewed 50 women who had experienced the gauntlet in the hallway or elsewhere, and found that 23 of them felt they had been victimized, i.e. had not consented to the activity (Zimmerman, pp. 76-77)." - I cannot find the 23 figure on Zimmerman pp. 76-77 but I may be missing where it is. Pagination issue?

  Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Although the sources do not specify, it is likely that Snyder was forced to retire at the rank of captain." - it's unclear which source this is in, and the phrasing has hints of original research

  Y Deleted. I would not call it OR, and it is almost certainly true, but I cannot find a source for his retirement as a captain. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• " One of the women assaulted by Ibottson (on Friday, September 6) was Kara Hultgreen, who turned and knocked him down with a punch (Zimmerman, pp. 12-13)." - Zimmerman pp. 12-13 does not mention Ibottson by name, or provide any identity information that could be clearly identified to Zimmerman. On a more minor note, it discusses an elbow to the back of the head, not strictly a punch

  Y Corrected. Added another reference that identifies Ibbottson. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Jim Ibottson" seems to be a misspelling of "Jim Ibbottson"

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Ready for the further navy prosecutions. Hog Farm _talk 21:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• "and introduced Jeannie Leavitt and Sharon Preszler as its first female fighter pilots, followed soon after by Martha McSally" - I'm not seeing any mention of McSally on the cited pages

  Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• " In media reports on the incidents, the Tailhook scandal is usually mentioned" - source is from 1997; we could use something more recent to support the lasting media attention on this subject (which I think anecdotally has died down a bit)

  Y I thought it was long forgotten, but apparently not. This gives me pause about sending it to FAC. Added two additional, more recent sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's what giving me pause here as well given that the two main sources (McMichael & Zimmerman) are both from only a few years after the incident and its fallout though. Although I'm not seeing much more recent high-quality works on this; this looks like it's been some degree been drowned out by the unending parade of various military scandals since then. I have to somewhat sheepishly admit that I was not alive when the Tailhook scandal happened. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

  I was, but I don't remember it. It may have been big news in the US, but not in Australia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• I think the entire popular culture section is fairly insignificant and should be removed.

  Y I am always very reluctant to remove sourced material from other editors, but removed an see how it goes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Hog Farm _Talk 21:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Maximiliano Hernández Martínez

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): PizzaKing13 (talk)

Maximiliano Hernández Martínez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is my third A-class nomination and my first biography nomination. Maximiliano Hernández Martínez was El Salvador's longest serving president, being in office from 1931–1934 and 1935–1944. He rose to power after a coup d'état that established El Salvador's 48-year-long military dictatorship that lasted until 1979. Due to the duration of his presidency, the things he did as president, and the impact he left on El Salvador's history, MHM has had a lot written about him. While he is at least somewhat known in El Salvador, as far as I can see he is not at all known outside of Latin America. I have the goal of making the article of every Salvadoran president as good as it can possibly be (I'm a long ways from achieving that at the moment), and so I want to try to get this article to A-class since I personally believe it stands the best chance out of any president's article of reaching this assessment. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 05:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Soure review

Hi PizzaKing13, my apologies first that this review has been vacant for 4 months now. I meant to review this when it was nominated, but had not been able to find the time. I am now beginning with a source review, and I hope this review can be closed within a month. Congratulations on writing such a good article, thanks for your patience with the project, and sorry for the delays. Here goes the source review:

• Link to Robert Elgie (academic), John Beverley (Latin Americanist), Dermot Keogh?

• Done

• Add the location of publication for Bethell 1998, Berk et al 2018, as done for all the other sources?

• I listed the locations I could find for the sources that didn't have any. Those that still don't have a location didn't have one mentioned at JSTOR, WorldCat, etc.

• Remove the “Incorporated” from the publisher name of Bosch 1999?

• Done

• Add the translated title and language for La Pensa Grafica 1994 Also, link to San Salvador?

• Done

• How reliable as sources are Lo Que Somos and Diario Co Latino? All the other sources have been published by reliable publishers.

• Diario Co Latino is a historic and reputable Salvadoran newspaper (it's even mentioned in the article as being censored by MHM). Idk what Lo Que Somos is; it looks like an activist website. I removed the source.

• Add the language for Dalton 2014?

• Fixed, it was sent to en instead of es

I will do the spot checks and image review soon, and the prose review at the end. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the checks. I honestly forgot I put this up for A class assessment lol. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 20:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

The source review is a pass. I will do the image and prose reviews next, and the spot checks at the end. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

Disappointed that this has taken so long to get reviews. Apologies for that.

• "bachelor's degree" - any idea what degree or major?

• Source does not specify, only that he "received the title of Bachelor"

• How do you earn a El Salvadorian Army rank in Guatamala?

• Think of it as that era's equivalent of Cold War-era Latin American countries sending officers to receive training/education at the School of the Americas.

• "promoted Martínez to the rank of general" In what grade?

• In the Salvadoran Army at the time, the only general rank was "General". See page Haggerty 1990 "El Salvador: A Country Study" page 214, and if you could somehow access it, Bosch 1999 "The Salvadoran Officer Corps and the Final Offensive of 1981" page 6. The modern distinction the army has between brigadier general and divisional general I believe is a late civil war or post-civil war change (1979–1992).

• Link sub-lieutenant, lieutenant, captain, captain major (what is that?), lieutenant colonel, colonel

• Linked. Not sure what a captain major is, but that's the rank he was promoted to. (Spanish: Capitán Mayor). The only similar thing I could find is the Portuguese rank of Captain Major.

• "Upon assuming office, Martínez's government assumed control over the country's economy in an attempt to mitigate the situation, that ultimately resulted in Araujo's overthrow." Nothing unusual about the government assuming control of the economy, but what "situation" are we talking about? Remove the comma. Comma placement is a problem in this article.

• Specific "economic situation"

• "The "Martínez Doctrine" was temporarily suspended in December 1941 during World War II in order for El Salvador to benefit from the Lend-Lease Act, that was promoted by the United States.[91]" Move this down to the World War II section

• Moved

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review this! PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 00:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Current reassessments

Please add new requests below this line