Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 62

Archive 55←Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62


ACR to-do list for January 2024

I've done a slightly eccentric image review. The kind where I search out the originals so better copies can be used. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 17:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
This appears to now be the oldest one now pending. I will try to get to it before the end of the month if no one else reviews it earlier. Adding that I may put John Bullock Clark ahead of it since that one is now far along. Donner60 (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


Seriously, if stuff needs image reviews, ask me. I've worked with images long enough. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 07:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Napoleon and A-class status

Napoleon was promoted to GA in July 2008, and received A-class status a month later. In 2021 it was demoted from GA status, but still retains its A-class designation. When an article is demoted at GA, should it still be listed as A-class here? Does an A-class reeassessment have to be opened to discuss its designation? Z1720 (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: As A-class criteria differs to that of GA-class criteria, a separate reassessment is needed. (@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I don't know if this is something we should be looking into? I remember discussions relating to this happening before but believe that the aforementioned requirement is still the status quo. Seems a little absurd to keep B (or worse) articles as A class when we generally consider A class to be higher than GA, despite the differing requirements). Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, we don't automatically demote an A-class article that's lost its GA status but I think such a situation is a prima facie reason to look at conducting a formal review of the article's A-class status. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Possibly we should watch for similar GA (and FA?) demotions in future and automatically list them for A class review? Maybe a bot could do it for us? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I found eight other examples of delisted GA articles that are currently still A class: Johann Mickl, Jean de Carrouges, Hans Waldmann (fighter pilot), Hans Philipp, Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II), Keith Miller, Arab–Byzantine wars, Home Army. Only Waldmann and Philipp have survived A class reassessment after a GA delist. Schierbecker (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes. The rules at FAC and GA are that demoted articles revert to their project status. We had an issue with FAs and GAs being demoted on ideological and political grounds unrelated to article quality. So the project determined that demoted articles retain their A-class rating pending an A-class reassessment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Makes sense. The project has a section in articles for review about FA reviews and GA reviews. The question may be if no one from the project is participating or closely following the reviews, does anyone know the outcome so that there can be a follow-up? One reason given for demoting articles recently is that they are too long. I think this should not be a hard and fast rule (15,000 words or some number of bytes or something like that), at least for demotions other than FA. I suppose there is a concern that long FA articles won't be read in entirety. I am not sure if that is always merited. From only the quickest glance, Andrew Jackson is an article up for review that appears to have ideological objections, as Hawkeye noted. Perhaps other objections are thrown in to make a case. I did not take more than a glance at the already long review. Donner60 (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Mickl (commander of a German-Croatian division that operated in Yugoslavia) is still listed as A-Class, I wrote it ten years ago, and I certainly have learned a lot since then. My view is that very odd rationales were taken by a group of editors during the GAR, especially about sources, and even extending to generic images used in the article. I acknowledge some flowery language needed trimming, but along the lines Hawkeye mentioned, most of the criticisms were not based on policy but some weird ideology that the man was being glorified because he had an article that mentioned anything other than the war crimes of his division. This was widespread across many articles about the German war effort at the time and coincided with the ArbCom case. The article needs some work due to the unjustified deletions, but (for example) the idea that a biography co-written by the historian Heinz A. Richter (who was selected to write Mickl's article in the Neue deutsche Biographie) is unreliable, is utter nonsense. Both sources that were challenged as unreliable were listed by Richter as sources he used to write the NdB article on Mickl. If they are good enough for NdB, they are good enough for WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
There was a list made a couple years ago of older A-Class promotions to check for those that may have deteriorated or been under poor standards. A few from that have been delisted. Hog Farm Talk 02:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
There was a long debate at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/John von Neumann/1 that was mostly about whether a GA can be stricken based on WP:TOOBIG. I strongly believe that an article is as long or short as it needs to be. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Somewhat related. Did anyone else notice that the new banner shell is reverting some FA-class Milhist articles to A class? Thirteen examples listed here. Schierbecker (talk)

@Hawkeye7: Is this not the issue you brought up several days ago? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it is. I thought it had been corrected and a bot run to repair the broken template. Is it still occurring? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Qwerfjkl says, Schierbecker, thank you for bringing my attention to this. I've fixed it now. There was a flaw in my logic for detecting opted-out wikiprojects. I will revert and rerun the bot on the milhist pages with issues. Schierbecker (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
To avoid duplication let's continue the discussion here, not at my talk page. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
@Qwerfjkl: Hi, thanks for fixing that! Greatly appreciated. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
I've fixed the FAs. Let me know if there are any other pages that need fixing. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Cewbot made the same error on William T. Anderson, Ulysses S. Grant and Fatimid conquest of Egypt on January 2. I just fixed them. Is that what Pickersgill-Cunliffe was talking about earlier? Schierbecker (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Schierbecker, I've only looked at the first one but it wasn't caused by Cewbot. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Oops, Cewbot only caused the error on Talk:Fatimid conquest of Egypt. Sorry, going error blind. Schierbecker (talk) 07:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

BT-13 Vultee Valiant - N67496

Hello!

We see that you have our Vultee Valiant listed at Florida Keys Int'l Airport (information pulled from FAA). Just updating that this aircraft is not only airworthy but has the original crankshaft start mechanism. It is owned by Island Warbirds (https://islandwarbirds.com) located at Florida Keys Flight Academy in Marathon, FL

1942 BT-13 Vultee Valiant - N67496

Sincerely,

Island Warbirds Islandwarbirds (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Please be sure to add a citation and not add any promotional or advertising material to the article. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Note: no edits were made to the article after these posts up to the date of this comment. It appears it will be left to a project member to amend the article, with citation, as may be needed. Donner60 (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Effect on assessment of "too many primary primary sources" template

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Does a too many primary sources template prevent an assessment of B class, or even C class, if sufficient citations are provided. In the case of the article that has raised the question for me the primary sources are mainly US Army publications, which are verifiable and adequately credible sources for the topic Sapper Leader Course. Does that make a difference if the answer generally is that the assessment must be no higher than start or C? Thanks.
I may be offline for more time than I have been recently if setting up a new computer and a few other tasks that I need to work on take more time than expected or if a family member, who unfortunately has just tested positive for covid, gives me another infection. I have been online most days. This is as info if I have a sudden longer period of absence. Donner60 (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

A "too many primary sources" template does not prevent an assessment of B class. WP:MILMOS#SOURCES: articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. The use of high-quality primary sources is also appropriate, but care should be taken to use them correctly, without straying into original research. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. The covid infection in our household is worsening. Paxlovid has been prescribed and started. Donner60 (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Here's hoping everyone makes a swift recovery. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. All testing negative now. I now have some catching up to do. I'll be changing my user box to show I have survived two covid infections. Donner60 (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

ACR backlog

We've got 7 ACRs still open from 2023:

This one is ready to be closed. Zawed (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to be moving soon and will be time-limited but will see what all I can review. An organized effort to keep ACR running may be necessary because this has been backlogged for most of the past year or so. Hog Farm Talk 17:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for February

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

(discuss) 06:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC) :Reassess as start class with this edit summary: "reassess bot assessment for military history project and in banner shelll as start, fails b1 due to sources failing verification and otherwise suspect, fails b2 for incomplete coverage." Donner60 (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

ACR for Crusading movement ready for closure

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I have completed a third review for this article and the points raised have been addressed. The previous two reviews and responses were so thorough that I had only a few comments. Nonetheless, since no other third reviewer commented in whole or in significant part, I think it is proper for a completely uninvolved coordinator to close this one. Donner60 (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Project Scope: (1) crimes on military bases; (2) terrorist attacks on military bases

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I recently removed the project banner from an article that was about a mass shooting by a soldier at a military base (1999 Tempe military base shooting). It was not a foreign base and had no military event or operation connected with it. I considered this simply as a crime that happened to have been committed on an air base. I ask that whether there are contrary views or precedents about this being within the scope of the project.
I have just assessed an article as within the scope of the project with the note that I would give further thought and inquiry as to whether this too should only be within the crime and, in this case, the terrorism projects Mianwali air base attack. I think this is a closer call but possibly different enough for a different result. The event was an attack by nine jihadist militants against a Pakistani military base. Three aircraft were damaged and the article states that "The Pakistani Armed Forces repelled the attack, killing all nine attackers during the security operation." Are the additional facts enough to bring this within the scope of the project or is this still simply a large crime committed by terrorists? I will appreciate your help in defining the scope of the project in such situations. Donner60 (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  • I lean towards including it since we broadly define anything related to the military to be within our scope, so it passes that criteria in spades. You're also talking about soldiers attacking other soldiers (in the former case), which broadly fits the definition of a battle. As for the airbase attack, that's an attack on a military installation which by western definition would come under the "war on terror", so it could be reasonbly included. My two cents. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Big Black River Bridge

Fully reviewed. Promoted to A class. Donner60 (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

New academy page

I have documented our procedure for creating an A-Class review or reappraisal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

In relation to A-class reviews, any thoughts on creating a separate heading on the review page for them? I think it would be useful to split the re-assessments out from the actual reviews. Just a new level two header either above or below the extant "Current reviews" slot. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I think this would be a good idea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: I've split out the reassessments, but don't know whether this will upset the bot? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
It should be okay. Unlike FACBot, it does not sort the entries chronologically. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't know whether this is something the bot could do, but it might be useful if the bot could automatically identify a-class articles that have lost FA or GA and list them in a particular section for reassessment. As it is now articles will be falling through the cracks, as we rely on editors noticing an article has lost its status and manually putting it up for review. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
The could be done by the bot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for March

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Awards

I have approved all the quarterly awards except my own. Note that with the promotion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Fort McKavett State Historic Site at A-Class, Vami IV has been posthumously nominated for an A-class medal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for April

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

ACR to-do list for May 2024

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Three reassessment nominations (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Sihanouk Trail, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/T-26, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Fort Corcoran) could also use further attention. Hog Farm Talk 20:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for May

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

ACR to-do list for July 2024

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for June

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

change to 96th Infantry page?

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history Donner60 (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Error in strike through; June auto check unfinished

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Five days ago I made a mistake in a close strike through symbol in a previous section which resulted in the entire June ACR page showing strike throughs. In fact, not all of the articles have yet been checked. User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe saw the error and corrected it. Sorry for the mistake. Donner60 (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for July

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: About 16 hours ago I made another mistake in a close strike through symbol in a previous section which resulted in the entire July ACR page showing strike throughs. In fact, only a few of the articles have been checked. At least the error did go as long as the last one and perhaps had yet to be noticed. Obviously I need to be more careful with these strike throughs and not rush through them apparently without previewing. That's a mistake that I think that I do not often make. Sorry for the further mistake and possibly misleading anyone who looked at that section. Donner60 (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Election time

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: It's that time of the year again! Does anyone believe anything should be changed, or are we happy to go with a copy-paste of the process and spiel from last year? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Last year I documented the process in the #How to... section above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Very helpful! What timespan are we looking at this year? I'd be in favour of anything between 10 and 14 days for nominations and voting each, starting on 1 September? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks PC. My preference would be 10 days for each. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
@Pickersgill-Cunliffe, Gog the Mild, and Hawkeye7: (Others have not yet commented so original ping should be sufficient for them.) As I recall, adequate notice was given late last year which was at least part of the reason for continuing with the 14-day periods. As long as timely notice is given, and September 1 is the starting date, I an indifferent as to whether the period is 10 days or 14 days. I think the amount of work to be done for the project suggests that more coordinators are needed. I would favor at least 9 plus the lead coordinator. Based on the small number nominees last year, some recruiting may be needed. Labor Day in the United States is Monday, September 2, early in a notice period starting September 1. That is a holday weekend and some people take late summer vacations the previous week and over that weekend. That could limit the number of Americans who are online during that period, which is another reason that I suggest not starting the process earlier. Donner60 (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I have created the main page, the tally and the status for the election. I haven't done this before so if someone could double check my dates that would be great. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh good, I was worried that no one had gotten to this yet. Pleased to see that was not the case. Carry on! TomStar81 (Talk) 18:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

If coords want to start pondering whether they are standing for re-election soon..! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: With the start imminent, would you be willing to handle the task of the initial announcement/MMS? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Sure. I will send out the MMS tomorrow. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
@Donner60: @Harrias: Pinging as you two haven't noted whether you're running for re-election or not. No pressure, but just in case it's passed you by. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I also believe Schierbecker wanted to run for re-election but appears to have lost access to their account. Not sure if there's an update there? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: If we don't get a full complement, I'm happy to stay on, but to be honest, life has got away from me this year, and I've barely had any time for Wikipedia. Hopefully things should calm down again from around Spring 2025, but who knows. Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
@Harrias: Hope you're doing well. Don't feel discouraged from putting your name forward now, and there's always co-opting later in the year if you like. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: Thoughts on doing another message for the voting period, or is one enough? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
I'd personally like to see a mass message for the voting period - these elections seem to be running much more under the radar than they have in the past. Hog Farm Talk 21:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
On board with that. A new mass message specifically indicating that voting is open (and what WikiProject it refers to!) would ensure some more interaction. I don't personally think two in a month would creep into the realm of spam. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Agree. The Bugle will be going out shortly, with a note about the election, but every bit helps. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I will send out another mass message. I am always a bit nervous about them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Send a draft here first if you like...needs to be little more than informing people they can now vote, imo. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I sent one out before I saw this, but I will add a new pro forma for use next year. Bear with me - I only just got back from Europe. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for August

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Help Joining this Group

Hello gentleman I am new to this, so please be patient with me. I am hoping to join your group, and the American Military history taskforce. Specifically. I have some ideas about adding to the List of wars involving the United States and creating and contributing to related articles. My interest is in smaller wars that not as many people know about. But I want to discuss my ideas with all the people working on these projects, because I want to be a team player and not just jump in without consulting anyone. I want to be extremely respectful to everyone's time and efforts. Please advice when possible.

And thank you for all your help. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Reposted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history for wider coverage. Coordinators will not necessarily know what other experienced users, members of the project and any others interested in the subject may be working on. This page is probably watched only by coordinators and perhaps a few others, including past coordinators. If you do not see an article on the list, you might search to see if one has been written and not added. If you write an article about a topic not on the list, and the article is kept as notable and not covered already, you could add it to the list and see whether anyone watching the list has some comment or believes the action is covered in another article.
Other than that, without specifics, my thought is that only those directly working on such articles and lists might respond. For a general question, that is likely to be on the project talk page. Also, consider adding your user name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/United States military history task force and any relevant period task forces. You could send a query to all of the members of that group. Some are possibly not very active or not being work on the specific questions you have in mind. Putting a message on the user talk pages of the task force members may be the best way to get some responses from users who may be working on the topic. Also, you should add your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members so that you will receive the monthly newsletter, the Bugle, and other mass mail messages from the project. Donner60 (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

USS Texas (BB-35) A-Class reappraisal

Just like the Texas herself, I believe that it's time to bring this neglected 15 year-old A-class article to dry dock for repairs. There are several issues (article version):

  • A1: The citation style is inconsistent. There are refs (including some bare URLs) mixed in with {{sfn}}s. Some claims are cited to irreputable sources, such as YouTube videos (e.g., ref 71) and primary sources (see all 18 references tagged with {{third-party inline}} as of Sept. 2012). There's also a valid {{failed verification}} tag from Nov. 2012 and three valid citation needed tags (oldest Jan. 2023). Additionally, all but one of the nine footnotes (ref group A) lack inline citations.
  • A2: The article goes into unnecessary detail in that it relies on primary sources. It also lacks relevant detail in that the 2022 dry docking section hasn't been updated since April 2024. Additionally, given the sourcing issues, the article may not be factually accurate.
  • A3: The service history section is well-organized, but the museum section has several sub-sections with three short paragraphs mixed in with much longer sub-sections. Both could also use years in parentheticals in the subheadings.

I will be bringing these concerns to GA reassessment as well. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I've nominated this for GAR as well: USS Texas (BB-35) (nom). voorts (talk/contributions) 01:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Reposted this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history for greater coverage. Posts on this page are unlikely to be seen by many, if any, project members who are not current or emeritus coordinators. Donner60 (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Donner60. Just to note, the instructions on the A-class review page say "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." If these should instead be posted at the main project talk, that guidance should probably be changed. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
The message does not need to be changed but we do need to sort out what to do about an A-class review request and simultaneous GA request, rather than just a GA review request. Your note referred to bringing the matter up for GA reassessment. These are of more general interest and often receive comments from experienced or interested users and either draw the attention of users who want to work on bringing the article up to standard. An outcome to delist a GA may be made based on consensus and comments that the article needs work and should be delisted if no one comes forward to fix it. My first impression is that there should be sources available so that the article could be brought back to at least a GA assessment. Some of the problems are cleanup problems and don't appear at first glance to require many additional references.
This is a little out of my subject areas of concentration and I do not have the time right now to spend on working on a reassessment where considerable time may be needed for improvements to this article. Other members of the project who have worked on the Majestic Titan project, not just coordinators, should be able to help with this type of article if they see this and are motivated to help improve the article. The A-class assessment probably should be handled separately, and considered first, although an article that does not meet GA standards almost certainly would not meet A class standards in a separate review. Some of those users being pinged likely can help with that.
With your second post in mind, I did not understand that you were asking for help on an A-class review but thought a GA was the real problem to be addressed. So that was a mistaken interpretation or too quick a consideration. I checked and saw that in fact that while the overall assessment appears to be GA, the military history project assessment is still shown as A-class. So it appears that both assessments have been brought in issue here. I left your message here so other coordinators might also be more likely to see it. I am now pinging the other coordinators and a few experienced editors or former coordinators who may be interested in this article to let them know that my response did not fully reply to your concern and to see if they have any interest in the reassessments or other comments or can help with setting up an A-class review. I have not set up any A-class reviews. If that needs to be done, someone more familiar with the process and with more experience with A-class reviews should be able to handle this more adequately and quickly than I can if I have start my first one now from scratch. Sorry for any misunderstanding or delay. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: @Hog Farm, Matarisvan, Dank, Ed!, Sturmvogel 66, MisterBee1966, Thewellman, TomStar81, DPdH, and Parsecboy: Donner60 (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
This topic is also outside my area of "expertise". I would recommend that the original editor, I believe it was @TomStar81:, has a look at the concerns brought forward. In my view, they have some validity to them, in particular the citation style could be more concise. With respect to sourcing, different editors interpret the guidelines for reliability differently. To some, reliability and notability can only be derived from academic secondary sources, while others tolerate primary sources for some content, like stats. Not sure if this was helpful. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
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. It doesn't say anything about GAR but I think this should also apply. Otherwise, we would have two pages on which comments would be posted and answered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Given that most GARs aren't well attended, I don't see the harm in proceeding with the A class reassessment. If A class can be retained, then it will certainly meet GA. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
I would personally prefer to see the GAR closed before the A-Class re-review is opened, for the same reasons as Hawkeye above. Hog Farm Talk 17:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Ibid, best to close the GAR. Avoid confusion and sort the more complicated review first. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
I'll ask the GAR coordinators if it can be placed on hold. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment: There has been a recent change. Formerly, an article could be rated as A-class by some projects and a Good Article by others. Now that we have PIQA, it will be rated A-class by all projects. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: Am I right in saying that while the rating is shared, there isn't a centralised review? We still review Milhist A-class articles within the WikiProject? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
I thought that MILHIST opted out of PIQA, so it should be GA for every other project. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
We did not opt out of PIQA. We are still resolving some issues. A-class is a standard grade under PIQA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
For example, Talk:Trident (UK nuclear programme); the article is now marked as A-class for all projects. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
The GAR discussion is now on hold. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
@Hog Farm & @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: can this proceed to reappraisal now? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
checkY It is done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for September

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)


Suggestions

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Welcome to another year of coordinating! While I'm not looking to start anything immediately I want to raise the idea of some kind of drive or event during this term. Of our five major milestones only one remains; it might be nice to have a drive with the goal of furthering that? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I had been thinking along those lines. I am not sure how the 83.5% figure was arrived at. There are 227,416 articles in the project rated FA, A, GA, B, C, Start and Stub (ie excluding 5,708 lists and 90,811 templates, redirects, categories etc.) To get from 83.5 to 100.0 we need to lift the number of B class articles by about 20% ie 4,000 articles. Unlike the other goals, this one is a moving target.
So how would we go about doing that?
  • One reservoir is the 64,240 C class articles. Some of them may already qualify as B-class, due to the MilHistBot being uncertain about the referencing. For example: 1st Dorsetshire Artillery Volunteers. Others (more common), like 1st Gloucestershire Engineer Volunteer Corps only need a couple of extra references. Most though, need a lot of work. Some are completely unreferenced. We could go through selecting articles that only need a bit of work.
  • We could also look at the stubs with a view to deleting or merging some. For example, Talk:1st Military District (Australia) contains a 2016 discussion of merging the Australian military districts into one article which was never performed.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Good ideas. Many years ago the rogue and banned editor Wild Wolf rated articles start and perhaps occasionally C at random without ever looking at them. He did several in a minute so coordinators and administrators warned him more than once before he was banned. He was also using sockpuppets. I stopped asking for reviews at that time although I am quite sure some of my articles then and later were B class. If I could find a little extra time, I think it would take little work for me to bring them up to B from later deterioration. Those are just a small number of the many that could be improved. I would hope that many editors would respond because many of these articles are on obscure topics with hard to find references. I doubt that I, for one, have or can easily find references for them if the problem is citation deficiency. Donner60 (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Exactly. Editors would have trouble finding references in subject areas in which they are unfamiliar, but more easily in subject areas within their field of expertise. So the approach I would suggest one of triage, where we work though the C class articles, discarding those requiring a lot of work, and categorising the rest according to topic area, so participating editors could take them on and correct them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Create a pre-arranged list of not-too-terrible C-class articles, and put them up in a drive for improvement? Coords could then be in charge of re-rating/checking for B-class once an editor has signified that the article has been actioned. Barnstars and leader boards as appropriate? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
This sounds like a good idea to me. Hog Farm Talk 19:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I think the clearest way to organise the list would be with the task force topics. The question would be whether sections be created for all the task forces (there are a lot!) or only for one type of them? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
How many of the task forces are still functionally used? I imagine it's only a fraction of the total ones. Hog Farm Talk 19:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi coordinators, congrats to all elected in this tranche. I have not been that active recently (and am not currently a coord) but thought I'd chime in on this. I did do a bit of work monitoring our progress against this target in 2018-2019 (User:Dumelow/MILHIST B-class assessment stats); when we held a number of drives to try to clear the unassessed article backlog. This helped to slowly chip away at the target, improving it from 72.1% in February 2018 to 76.9% by October 2019. The November 2019 introduction of Milhistbot to automatically assess against the B-class criteria helped greatly (adding 1,500 new B-class articles) and led to a jump to 82.8% (we are currently at 83.4%). I agree that it would be absolutely great to achieve this target and help to demonstrate the project is committed to bringing a good chunk of articles to a basic decent standard as well as the perhaps more visible successes achieved at GA and FA. More than happy to help out assessing articles and chipping in with improvements if we can get a drive going. One area I was monitoring at the time of the last push was Category:Military history articles needing attention only to supporting materials which currently holds around 1,300 articles. A good portion of these, in theory, need only an image or infobox to achieve the B-class standard - Dumelow (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
That would, in my opinion, be a fantastic place to start. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi, chiming in late here. The ideas advanced above, namely the listing of C-class articles for improvement to B-class, and working on the articles requiring supporting materials, sound great to me. Also, working on articles which need work on article structure and grammar could be done concurrently; those requiring more citations or coverage could be done later if needed. Matarisvan (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I had the MilHistBot provide me a list of some of the low hanging fruit. It suggested articles like:
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
What kind of parameter are you using for that? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I asked it to locate C-class articles that are fully or nearly fully referenced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
I ran off another short list here. The number in parentheses is the number of references that the Bot thinks are lacking. Plenty more where these came from, but most could be uplifted to B-class with a little effort. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

In addition to, if you are looking for specific focal areas, you could have a look at the various Task Forces and their respective WikiWork parameters: Cumulative WikiWork (ω) and Relative WikiWork (Ω). For example, the United States military history task force indicated values of ω=302,399 and Ω=4.541. This task force alone accounts for approx. 28% of all military history articles while only 11.2% are B-class or higher. It would require improving approx. 2,500 articles within the United States military history task force to push this task force north of the 15% threshold. Food for thought. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

ACR to-do list for October 2024

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I am a newly elected coord for WPMH. I'm taking the initiative to add this topic since the ACR to-do list for July 2024 above has been exhausted, it has only one task remaining, which I will cover below. Would be great to hear from other coords. Please feel to delete this introductory text once all other coords have read it.

Matarisvan (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:HD § Problems moving an article due to a redirect

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:HD § Problems moving an article due to a redirect. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a MILHIST coordinator could take a look at this question posted at the Help Desk and provide some advice to the OP. In addition to the naming issue, there might also be a CONTENTFORK issue since most of the content in User:Mr.Lovecraft/Construction site beta has the feel of stuff that might already be covered in existing Wikipedia articles about either the US Army itself or World War II. If that's the case, maybe it would be better to explain this to the OP sooner than later and spare them the surprise of having this moved to the mainspace only to see it subsequently merged, redirected, etc. by someone else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I see that the author has moved this to the article title United States Army in World War II. I think the title is misleading. While much of the material is covered and I have other criticisms, a problem that I see initially is that this article is really only about the organization of the United States Army in World War II. It would be more accurate to add the words "Organization of the" to the title if it is to be retained in its current form and not distract readers from the comprehensive article on Military history of the United States during World War II. Ping other coordinators for specific notice if they wish to comment here or on discussion page. I will add my comment there. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: Donner60 (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
@Donner60: Thanks for taking a look at this. The HD discussion was archived and can now be found at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 October 7#Problems moving an article due to a redirect. The OP responded to your post, but I'm not sure they understood what you were trying to say. The article they created can now be found at United States Army during World War II. Perhaps Talk:United States Army during World War II is now the best place for you or any other members of MILHIST to comment on it or assess it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
The name is like those of other countries, eg Australian Army during World War II, British Army during the Second World War. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
@Marchjuly and Hawkeye7: I have added a see also section to this article with Military history of the United States during World War II, and included in the edit summary "other articles about nation's armies in World War II are more comprehensive, this see also should direct interested readers to additional information." I think that should satisfy my concern and not leave readers without a link and article providing information other than just the organization. Donner60 (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

November Bugle

I'm going to be travelling without Wikipedia access for the next month or so. Could one or two people please volunteer to help Ian with the next edition of the Bugle? I usually handle the book reviews, ACR blurbs and featured pictures. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Happy to help if given a nudge closer to publishing. Am I right in saying Adam Cuerden has assisted with the pictures before? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
In the apparent absence of a reply, I have looked at the featured pictures published in September and October. The following are two pictures added to the list of featured pictures in October but not published on the main page in October; these seem to be the types of pictures included in the Bugle's new featured pictures section:
<gallery mode=packed heights=200px>
File:British Columbia Regiment 1940.jpg|Wait for Me, Daddy, by Claude P. Dettloff (restored by Yann)
File:Daddy, what did You do in the Great War?.jpg|"Daddy, What Did You Do in the Great War?", by Savile Lumley/Johnson, Riddle & Co. Ltd. (restored by Adam Cuerden)
These are pictures that were published on the main page in October, but not included in those designated in October as well. So I think they were probably designated as new featured pictures in the Bugle in an earlier month:
USS Johnston
Archibald Sinclair, 1st Viscount Thurso
I am reasonably sure that the first two would be the ones included in the November Bugle as new featured pictures for October, but not the second two. I am pinging @Adam Cuerden:. Perhaps he can confirm that I have researched and analyzed this completely and correctly or whether I have missed something or otherwise come to an incorrect or incomplete conclusion. Donner60 (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
This is the October issue we are talking about? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
In the absence of a reply, it appears to me that this would be October news, features, etc. in the November issue. The November issue template is not yet up as of a short time ago. Donner60 (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
My apologies: I'm dealing with my father's estate, which is taking a lot of my mental facilities. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Quite understandable. Sorry to hear of the loss of your father. Best wishes. Donner60 (talk) 05:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Quality content drive?

Question: Would there be any interest here is running a project backlog drive with the expressed goal of working through our quality content? We've had that "prior to 2016 it needs to be looked" at disclaimer, but not a lot of action on it, and I get the sense other project are having the same issue(s). If we could find enough support in our project for a drive that'd be great, but I'm thinking with so many articles in need of work we'll need to do some outreach to cover our bases. At a minimum, WP:GOCE should be contacted, but if there's interest here then perhaps we can count on some interest across the spectrum. If it should really blow up, I'd be prepared to give it a proper code name and split up the work into task forces for more manageable bytes. What do you think? TomStar81 (Talk) 11:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

An initial question: Would this be along the lines suggested by Pickersgill-Cunliffe in the "Suggestions" topic above or a separate drive? If two different types of drives are contemplated, I think they would need to be spaced some months apart to generate enough enthusiasm to make some real progress. Donner60 (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
No, this'd be an independent drive with the objective of addressing articles listed at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020. This list has appeared for a few years in our news section with the byline "Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C.". Ostensibly, the goal would be to coordinate efforts just within the existing batch there to clear our articles out of the list - although if the rest of the community (biography project, history project, women project, etc) were interested we could consider initiating a Wikipedia wide drive. Right now, I'm just trying to suss out if there is any interest in this particular avenue of work, or if the community wants to rally around a different group of articles to work on at the moment. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I do not see the byline under the News & Open Tasks tab or in the Bugle. I looked more closely and see it under the Discussion tab and in the template {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}. Some members of the project know about this drive because I note contributions to/reviews by several current and former coordinators and experienced users in recent years but perhaps the byline about it could be inserted on the News & Open Tasks page or in the Bugle News section or both for greater exposure. Donner60 (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi guys, this month's Bugle is late going out but that did allow me to catch this discussion, so I chucked a reminder about unreviewed FAs into the News section. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Military historian and newcomer of the year election voting

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: When I documented the procedure for this last year, I said that voting was between 1 and 30 December but forgot to specify the nomination period. Would two weeks be sufficient? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, that's enough time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Donner60 (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Okay. I have updated the instructions accordingly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for October

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Something seems wrong here. I will re-check the logs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 06:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for October

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

That's better Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Awards

@Hawkeye7: Dates for nominations differ between talk page and MMS. I'm assuming it's the MMS that's correct? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I have corrected the talk page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

My rewrite on Talk:Bombardment of Greytown

Around mid-October, I left a message at this URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Requests_for_project_input.

I did not receive a reply. Here is what I said:

I have done an expansive rewrite edit of Wikipedia’s Bombardment of Greytown page on that page’s talk page.

There, I had learned that: “This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: Military history: Maritime / British / European C‑class.”

I invite anyone associated with WikiProject: Military history to read my attempt to improve upon this Start-class article and to comment.

I realize you may be very busy with other projects. But if you could just acknowledge an awareness of my effort and that it's "in the cue" to be looked at (with perhaps a rough estimate as to when), I would be much appreciative.

Will-DubDub Will-DubDub (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

On your talk page, you have a conversation in which an editor with a few years of experience replied that your proposal to follow this procedure was appropriate: "I found this advice online: "If you plan to make substantial edits to a Wikipedia article, it is generally considered good practice to first draft your changes on the article's talk page, especially if the edits are significant or potentially controversial, allowing for discussion and feedback from other editors before implementing them directly on the article itself." To do this, it said to "Start a new section [add topic?] on the talk page."
Although the advice about starting a discussion on potentially controversial changes has some merit, in more than 14 years on Wikipedia, I have never seen an entire article rewritten on a talk page and have no knowledge about where it is suggested in Wikipedia guidelines as a procedure for getting comment or help on a substantial or an entire rewrite of an article - which in turn is not likely to be controversial. (I see you got this advice "online", perhaps not on Wikipedia itself?, but maybe it exists somewhere here.). Your pinging of others who have been involved in editing the article was appropiate and a good way to get input. For prominent articles (perhaps Battle of Gettysburg, as an example), just posting on the talk page might attract comment from a few persons who have the article watchlisted. Posting on the requests for project input on the project talk page here also was a potentially good way to get input. As I note below my suggested way to progress this, however, requests for project input here may or may not get one or more responses.
The substantial amount of work that you have done seems to be work usually done in draft space and submitted first to articles for creation by newer editors. Because you are obviously good at research and writing, and have gained some experience through articles for creation in particular already, I suggest a more usual approach for assessment of a presumably non-controversial improvement or revision of an existing article. Post the changed article on the article page itself and then ask for an assessment of the article grade at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. A coordinator or experienced user will respond as soon as a day later and almost certainly within a week. They will not do research or comment on the substance of the article unless something does not seem correct and probably if the article is in a topic area with which they are familiar. They may have questions or suggest that you expand or clarify some point. The main purpose of the review, other than that, is to tell the writer whether the article meets B class criteria or whether there are some deficiencies that need to be addressed in order to bring the article to B class. Reviewers will almost always make minor changes for misspellings or grammar. They will not do research or help you rewrite or improve an article - with perhaps a few exceptions in areas of their knowledge and interests. There is a different procedure for higher level reviews. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment. The main roles of coordinators are shown at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators.
I have only skimmed the article. It appears to be B class in form, except for the end of a few paragraphs where citations are needed; I tagged them in the draft. I would need to read the article more carefully to assess it after citations are added but it looks good at first glance. I personally use a references section as well as citations or notes because in some cases there are additions that are not references and for concise reading. As far as I know, that is not required but just how some editors approach this.
Requests for project input is a new separate topic area put at the top of the project talk page. These type of requests were scattered through the talk page in the past. Usually, they are about disagreements already started about something in the article, occasionally about a substantive point, or even more likely, about actions such as changing the title of the article and other non-substantive matters. Coordinators (and we are four short of the desired number of coordinators) may or may not respond if it appears that it is something they can or really need to address. As you knew or surmised, coordinatiors are usually busy on tasks noted in the page cited above or even on their own articles.
This request for input section is on the general project talk page rather than on this page in the event other members of the project, usually experienced users, can, or wish to, provide comment or even additional help. Sometimes experienced users who watch that page do reply. I assume some of these requests may never get a reply. After some period of time requests are removed from the page with the presumption that anyone who was interested in replying would have done so on the article talk page or any other type of page on which the question is raised. I do reply to some requests and will note that I did so in reply to the request on the project talk page as well, although this not an established procedure. So some input may or may not have been given to archived requests. As I noted above, I think your request was a good approach and not unique. Perhaps we need to add to the topic introduction a note saying that a request may or may not receive input from project members (including coordinators) who see the request for various stated (or unstated) reasons in order to prevent future misunderstandings.
If you have further questions, you are welcome to ask them here or on my talk page. Otherwise, I again suggest that you post the changed article in article space and ask for assessment. Since all the past versions of the article are posted, they will still be available if needed for some reason. Donner60 (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for this extensive and extremely helpful reply.
I have added the three citations you suggested (and thanked you after putting in the first two).
I will transfer my draft to the article page if the new citations meet with your approval. When it is on the article page, I will bring it to the attention of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests and ask for an assessment of the article grade.
I only have two remaining questions for the moment. When should I think about adding images? And should I add a Bibliography or Further Reading section when, in fact, three of the entries would be to publications of mine, including a book in print? Would this not raise the specter of conflict of interest or would I be regarded as an SME, or “Subject-Matter Expert”? Will-DubDub (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Please add the infobox (amended if necessary) and accompanying picture when you post the article to the article page. You can add pictures then or later. I have read the article and with the infobox and picture I can rate the article as B class regardless whether additional pictures are added now or later.
Some reviewers and other users object to the posting of rows of pictures (galleries), especially in shorter articles. There is a guideline to that effect somewhere but it has not precluded galleries, especially near the end of long articles. So add pictures to the right or left of the text to avoid any criticism. They don't all need to be on the same side. This fine line about picture posting seems a bit odd to me since pictures are otherwise encouraged. It may go back to the time when limiting the number of bytes in an article was more necessary for loading the page on slower computers or phones.
You are not trying to promote your books or gain some advantage by citing them. I don't see a conflict of interest. Some users mention books that they have written without trying to promote them. You would indeed be a subject matter expert. Indeed, I don't think the books would even be recognized as yours.
I have thought a little more about the requests for project input. The separate section at the top of the page was introduced recently upon the suggestion to keep them together and concurrence by a couple of other people. I saw the request and thought there would be no problem with that approach and did not comment. In fact, it turns out that there is a misunderstanding because the types of requests we may have thought about were more routine ones, mostly change of titles and minor questions.
I think that it would be better for someone who would like input about possible additional sources or comments on a few statements or a paragraph or specific questions and the like to post those in a new section (titled with the article title, and possibly even something like "help with" in the section. These would be posted after the existing sections on a page. That is how they have been done. I think this type of request for some limited help or comment that would more likely draw responses and would not be contrary to the grouping of the types of requests that the list of current requests of a certain type at the top was meant to highlight. Those requests often are looking for input for additional responses or are often procedural. More substantive requests in order of posting still might not draw responses but I think there would be a better chance that a coordinator or experienced user would see that it is a question or request about which they could easily and quickly provide a comment, source or suggestion. Donner60 (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks again for another long, helpful note.
I will be making slight changes to the info box while retaining the picture.
I won't be putting in any other pictures right away, but later.
I appreciated this: “I have read the article and with the info box and picture I can rate the article as B class.” But should I still bring it to “the attention of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests and ask for an assessment of the article grade”?
And I also appreciated this paragraph:
You are not trying to promote your books or gain some advantage by citing them. I don't see a conflict of interest. Some users mention books that they have written without trying to promote them. You would indeed be a subject matter expert. Indeed, I don't think the books would even be recognized as yours.
But I found a page on Wikipedia describing how to set up a “Further reading" entry which “a reader may consult for additional and more detailed coverage of the subject.” And it said:
Please do not add a work to the Further reading section if you are an author or publisher of the work. All editors are expected to comply with the Conflicts of interest guideline.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Further_reading#:~:text=The%20Further%20reading%20section%20of,detailed%20coverage%20of%20the%20subject
Any additional advice on this subject would be most welcome. Will-DubDub (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Please put the assessment request on the article assessment request page. I look at that page frequently, and in some weeks, daily. That helps keep the request upfront and records that it has been handled in the page history. Someone else could assess it earlier but I am sure the assessment would be the same. In recent times, I often get to handling the requests first for the majority of the requests.
My opinion on the conflict of interest is the same. You will be citing a work that can (presumably) be checked for relevance and accuracy, not promoting it. Apparently someone or a few people thought that adding one's own work to further reading would be promotional. At least I can't think of any other reason for that part which covers own works in the COI section. Notably, the essay contains this sentence: "Bookspam (the addition of content for the purpose of advertising a work) and other promotional activities are prohibited." Note also that the essay is not a guideline itself but an explanatory essay. That is indicated by this sentence: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." The main purpose of this page seems to be to keep users/editors from adding numerous additional works that are not cited in the article or not within other guidelines, including the prohibition on COIs.
I have seen opinions of users who think there shouldn't be further reading sections at all. Perhaps they serve a purpose in long articles about broad topics, but then again, if they are useful, I don't see why they would not be cited. I don't use further reading sections and think that even in the distant past I have never added or added to one. I am sure that I have edited articles that already have such sections but I am reasonably sure that I have never added to or otherwise edited such a section. Donner60 (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Is this the article assessment request page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment?
And is this how I make the request? “Just add {{WikiProject Wikipedia}} to the talk page.” If so, after I transfer the draft to the article page, should I click on “Add topic” in the Bombardment of Greytown talk page, and put ?what? in the Subject and Description boxes?
Sorry for my ignorance!
I am ready to transfer my draft from the talk page to the article page of “Bombardment of Greytown".
I will leave the info box and the picture in place, changing the info box only slightly, to reflect the fact that Greytown was an independent city state at the time of the razing.
I also added a 200 word section to the draft that you haven't seen before. This is not about anything new. It is an expansion of the argument that the case law Durand v. Hollins should not be used to justify presidential acts of war against sovereign states. It begins with the words: "Justice Nelson went on to say …” and ends with the words "Pierce and Secretary Marcy on that express ground”.)"
Thanks again for all your help. Will-DubDub (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
You will see on the project's article assessment page Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests (not the talk page for that link) the following caption: ADD NEW REQUESTS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS SECTION AND BEFORE THE LINE FOR THE BACKLOG CHECK REQUEST. Start with an asterisk, then a link to the article that you wish to have assessed. Most requests are accompanied by a brief comment, occasionally a question, but often just something like "Please assess" or "Please assess for B class." As long as the new text is covered by the existing footnote, or a new or repeated one is placed at the end of it if it is added to the end of a paragraph, it will be fine. I am glad you mentioned it so that I will note it in particular Instead of skimming it since I had read it earlier. Thank you for following through with this. Donner60 (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for November

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

Cewbot removing "class=redirect" causing problems

Hi co-ords. Just to let you know that User:Cewbot is removing class=redirect from the project banner (example) and causing a whole heap of redirects to appear in Category:Unassessed military history articles. Is this a problem with the bot or the banner? - Dumelow (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

This is still happening, eg. here on 10 December. Milhistbot is then dutifully reassessing them as redirects eg here, but does this risk causing an endless cycle of bot edits? Pinging User:Kanashimi and User:Hawkeye7 as the bot operators - Dumelow (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
@Gonnym, @Tom.Reding Maybe we should remove the class=redirect part in remove_unnecessary_parameters? Kanashimi (talk) 07:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Ii is alright. The article shows correctly as a redirect. The MilHist template requires class=redirect but the banner shell handles it automagically. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
{{WP Military history}} is in Category:Custom class masks of WikiProject banners, so Cewbot should be avoiding it when it comes to redundant class values.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  09:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Tom. The bot should avoid any template changes to templates in that category, but it should continue with removing it from everywhere else. If some templates want to work harder, that's their choice. Gonnym (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Just a note that this is still happening. At the moment Category:Unassessed military history articles, normally empty because Milhistbot auto-assesses, has 1,100 articles. The majority that I checked were redirects that Cewbot had removed the class parameter from (eg. 1 2 3). It is absolutely pointless to have one bot removing this parameter for another to readd it as a matter of course - Dumelow (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Fixed Kanashimi (talk) 09:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
@Kanashimi: since many normally-irrelevant |importance= params are removed via remove_unnecessary_parameters, hopefully you have an analog of this check/fix for Category:Custom importance masks of WikiProject banners as well?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
@Kanashimi: Not fixed - it is still happening (eg [1]). It is okay to remove |importance= from the Military History template, because it is invalid, but removing class=Redirect is an error, because Redirect is not redundant, and it winds up marking the article as unassessed, and then being corrected by the MilHistBot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I guess I didn't update the code? I just did. Kanashimi (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Military Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards

I have handed out all the awards for 2024 except my own. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I have handed out your first place award. Congratulations! Hog Farm Talk 02:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Hog Farm. Congratulations on your runner-up award too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for December

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for January

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

A-class reviews

It's great to see that since Hawkeye7's Bugle article a lot of momentum has returned to the A-class process. It certainly motivated me to post some reviews! Nick-D (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for February

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for March

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Mentor reviewer for Byzantine Empire

The Byzantine Empire is currently a FARC and it would be shame if it gets delisted. I'm asking if there is anyone who can help help get involved in the FAR process as an experienced mentor. We have a list of issues we know we need to address, but having someone with more experience can ensure ongoing contributions and talk discussions are balanced correctly, and this person can guide us to get this article out of the review stage by identifying deficiencies and their remediation for FA standard. Biz (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I have added this request to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history for notice to more project members. There are former coordinators and many experienced users who might be able to help with this. They may read the general project talk page but may not necessarily read this coordinator talk page. Thanks for posting this. Donner60 (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

This month in military history

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I tried to set up a draft section, task 10, for a this month in military history section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Newsroom. I removed it because it did not look correct to me. If we are to keep this section in the Bugle this month, someone with more familiarity at doing this, as Hawkeye7 did last month, will need to set it up in the newsroom or on a separate page to be incorporated later and let the other coordinators know it is available for editing. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll try to check on Thursday or Friday if nobody has gotten to this by then. Hog Farm talk 03:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
I have created it. I need to do a little more work before it is fully automated, so I will do each month in 2025. Eventually, it will all be done automagically. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for this. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

ACR for May

Assessments

Reassessments

There are no current reassessments. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for April

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for May

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened, some preliminary statements made, Indian military history

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: A broad topic case on Indian military history has been accepted by the Arbitration Committee. Preliminary statements are being filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history/Preliminary statements. Statements are due by June 5.

Here is the beginning of the opening statement by Tamzin, the administrator who set the case in motion: "The military history of pre-Raj India has increasingly become a flashpoint for disputes on-wiki, correlating with contemporary Indian political disputes. This has come in two principal varieties: the historiography of established figures like Sambhaji and Shivaji, and military actions of questionable historicity such as the alleged Sikh–Wahhabi War. In many cases this correlates with caste, religious, and ethnic tensions, especially in disputes over the Deccan wars. Below I have included the 13 (that I could find) threads in the past 3 months concerning this topic area."

"I have selected parties (whose names are boldfaced in the table) based on having been sanctioned or warned or having participated in multiple threads in a potentially partisan manner. That's not to say that I think all of these editors have necessarily engaged in misconduct. Nor is it to say that no other parties should be added; Srijanx22 and LeónGonsalvesofGoa both come to mind as potential parties."

This presents a problem for the project because some articles on these topics have been bot assessed at B class and a few may have had assessments by coordinators or experienced users. We may not be aware that some of these articles have been or will be subject to conflicting, questionable or contentious editing. Battle of Ratanpur, an article written by a now topic banned user is listed as bot-assessed as B class in May. The user has been blocked at least twice and had several submissions rejected or deleted. I haven't decided how to assess this but I am inclined at least to change the assessment to C, failing b2.

I have been reviewing the B class assessments and discovered the arbitration case and overall problem when I looked at the user talk page of the author of the article. (I usually look at the author or update editor of a B class article up for B class assessment review. If I don't recognize the user, I quickly look at the user's contributions and talk page, which occasionally are of some interest.) Donner60 (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

From the preliminary statement page: "Target dates: Opened 22 May 2025 • Evidence closes 8 June 2025 • Workshop closes 15 June 2025 • Proposed decision to be posted by 22 June 2025." Donner60 (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

ACR for June

Assessments

Reassessments

There are no current reassessments. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for June

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)


ACR for July

Assessments

Reassessments

There are no current reassessments. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

A-class reassessment request

Hi Milhist folks. I am not very familiar with the A-class process, but I think Gia Long, which is currently on the Main Page, might warrant another look. While it seems to have held up fairly well for an article promoted in 2009, a quick skim reveals an unsourced chunk under "Rule" and a factual error (the Four Books and Five Classics do not concern history up to the Song period – they were written over a thousand years before that), while the "expand from Vietnamese Wikipedia" template at the top suggests that criterium A2 (comprehensive) may not be met. If someone wants to take a look and initiate the appropriate processes, that'd be great. Toadspike [Talk] 10:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Toadspike. I have posted this request on the project's general talk page for more exposure. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. I think it is unlikely that anyone other than the seven active project coordinators and four active coordinators emeritus will see a message on this page. I will not archive this post immediately and I assume it will remain here for a short period of time where any interested coordinator might more readily note it. Donner60 (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for July

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/Archive_62