Main page

Discussion

News & open tasks

Academy

Assessment

A-Class review

Contest

Awards

Members

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

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

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

« Return to A-Class review list

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Landing at Scarlet Beach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The Landing at Scarlet Beach was the Australian Army's first opposed amphibious landing since Gallipoli in 1915, and the Australian Army's largest operation since the Great War. The landing at Scarlet Beach formed the right hook of a General Sir Thomas Blamey's double envelopment of the Japanese base at Lae. Although a knock-down-drag-out fight like the Battle of Buna was anticipated, the Japanese commander, Hatazō Adachi, chose to withdraw. Lae was developed into a major base. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

I had largely abandoned the New Guinea campaign articles after Rupert left. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "Landing at Scarlet Beach (Operation Diminish) (22 September 1943)" - presenting the date like this is a bit confusing given the article, correctly, covers the initial landing and the couple of weeks afterwards.

  Y Removed. Added later that it was in September 1943. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "native soldiers" - 'New Guinean/Papuan soldiers' or similar would be better here

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Ditto for "native porters", "natives", etc. This is outdated terminology.

  Y Replaced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "which was passed on along with GHQ's estimate" - who was this passed on to?

  Y The 9th Division. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "advanced along the coast from the Hopoi Mission Station" - can you give a bit more detail about this advance - e.g. "advanced north along the coast", etc - given that the geography here is very obscure to most readers.

  Y Added "east of Lae". It is marked on the main map. I could add another map. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "Japanese marines" - I presume that these were SNLF troops, who are usually referred to as naval infantry rather than marines (as they weren't trained or equipped to make assault landings)

  Y Changed to "naval troops". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "Grace ordered Major Ron Suthers" - what he commanded isn't identified at present

  Y Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "Suthers halted on the ridge for the night but resumed his advance in the morning, reaching the Bumi at 10:00. They..." - I suspect the first words here should be 'Surthers' company/battalion' or similar?

  I think it is clear that it is the ad hoc force that he commanded that is referred to. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "to protect the brigade area" - should this be "brigade maintaince area" or similar?

  Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "The arrival of the 2/43rd Infantry Battalion meant that" - I was a bit confused by this: I'd suggest tweaking to "The arrival of the 2/43rd Infantry Battalion in the beachhead..." or similar

  Y Tweaked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Japanese launched a counter-attack on the Allied lodgement around Scarlet Beach" - I'd suggest adding the date/s of this attack to clarify things

  Y Added date. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• From (very distant) memory, Coates notes that the Japanese 20th Division was a second-rate formation that had mainly been used for construction duties in New Guinea. If this is correct, it would be worth mentioning to provide some context.

  I can't find that assessment. The division was in Korea when the war began. It moved to Palau in January 1943 and then to Madang in June. It was used to construct the Madang-Lae Road, which was never completed, before being ordered to Sattelberg. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

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

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. Having overhauled the Hanford Site article, I thought it might be an idea to give some attention to its sister site in Georgia. The 800 km² site was built during the 1950s to produce plutonium and tritium for nuclear weapons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:02, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article size calculator plug in isn't working for me today so I can't put any useful figures around this, but I have to say that I find the size of this article rather daunting. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article size calculator plug in doesn't work on this article for reasons I am uncertain about. I asked the MilHistBot, and it said 13,741 words. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest moving some of the content to sub-articles. This article looks very comprehensive and well researched, but the amount of detail is likely to be off putting to most readers. Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I could split the article into two parts: Savannah River Plant and Savannah River Site, covering everything from "Post-Cold War transition and cleanup operations (1993–present)" on. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This has been done, so the article is much smaller now. I have nominated the other half. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

« Return to A-Class review list

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

First Battle of Springfield (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A rather confusing small action in southwestern Missouri in 1861. Remembered as Zagonyi's Charge, one historian notes that "The truth of what happened in Springfield on this October day is lost beyond recovery", and one recent source suggests that this was intentionally timed to create a media narrative of this as a new Charge of the Light Brigade. Essentially all sources have a different take on exactly what happened. Hog Farm _Talk 05:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Stikkyy (talk)

USS Anzio (CVE-57) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is the first article that I've brought up for A-class review. USS Anzio had an active career as an escort carrier, supporting campaigns and landings throughout the Pacific theater. Notably, she had to contend with land-based Japanese aircraft participating in "A-Go", and in her later service, she conducted numerous successful ASW patrols, assisting in the sinking of five submarines. Stikkyy (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see an article on a Pacific War CVE here. I'd like to offer the following comments:

• "and the Battle of Anzio, of the wider Italian theater." - this is a bit unclear
• I'd suggest tweaking the wording to avoid repeating 'she' so much - e.g. the first para of the 'Gilbert and Marshall Islands' section
• When did the ship's crew join the carrier and did they undertake training before it deployed? (or was this done on the job as part of the shakedown cruise?)

• The ship would have been sailed down to Astoria by a civilian crew prior to commissioning, whereupon the ship's crew would've boarded. Training for more general tasks (radio, engineering, damage control, etc.) would have been at sites like Farragut Naval Training Station, naval aviation crew would've been trained at Naval Air Station Pensacola, senior officers and petty officers could be expected to have come from the front. Noles p.32 says that 80% of the crew of Liscome Bay had never been to sea prior to her shakedown cruise. Later crews would have the luxury of spending two weeks on Casablanca prior to commissioning. Annoyingly, I don't think that I can include much of this information without being SYNTHy.

• The article doesn't provide any 'colour', such as details of the crew and their experiances - it's a dry summary of the carrier's operations. Can this be fleshed out a bit?

• It's difficult without a round of interviews similar to which Noles conducted for Liscome Bay, but I've added a bit.

• "her "damnable" engines gave in" - what was the problem with the engines? Was this a common issue for the CVEs, or specific to this carrier?

• My interpretation of the war diary is that the No.2 cylinder of the after main engine broke, and while investigating that, they found a problem with the No.5 cylinder, which they couldn't resolve at Eniwetok. I'm not an expert on Uniflow steam engines, so the picture isn't very clear to me. My suspicion is that the problem wasn't too severe, as August 1944 was very late for an early-production Casablanca-class carrier to undergo a refit. Admiralty Islands is the only other carrier that comes to mind that had engine problems in the field.

• Nevermind, read further–Several of the Kaiser-class vessels were encountering problems with their reciprocating engine plants, problems that would never be completely eradicated in this class of carrier. One of these flattops was the Natoma Bay, which had to return to Pearl to obtain the necessary facilities to repair her boilers and engines. Though not in bad enough shape to be sent back to Pearl Harbor, the Coral Sea spent a full month at Espiritu Santo replacing many broken piston rings in her forward main engine. Not until 2 June was she ready for combat again. The Little Giants p.100 Stikkyy (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

• " Ultra signals intelligence had alerted Anzio to the presence of a Japanese submarine in the area" - this is a bit misleading given the source of the intelligence would have been obscured from the ship's captain and crew
• " On 21 February, she witnessed a kamikaze sink her sister Bismarck Sea" - the crew witnessed this, not the carrier. Do we know what impact it had on them?

• Fair point–The Little Giants p.338 has Standing nearby as the Bismarck Sea sank was the Anzio. For the men on that carrier the sinking brought out a sick feeling of "please, not again." Almost a year and three months earlier they had watched the Liscome Bay blown apart. They had seen the first escort carrier go down and now, though they did not know it, they had seen the last one sink.

However, without any backing footnote, I think that this is mostly commentary from Y'Blood, I can't find a similar sentiment in the War History (p.52) nor the corresponding War Diary.

• "Anzio left San Pedro Bay on 6 July and reached her operating area 600 mi (970 km) east of Tokyo on 14 July, resuming her antisubmarine work covering Task Group 30.8. " - this is a bit unclear. I presume that the ship was operating in support of the Fast Carrier Force strikes on Japan during this period? Nick-D (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nick-D: I've made a stab at resolving your points. Stikkyy (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Those changes look good, especially given the limited sourcing on most individual CVEs. Nick-D (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the Design and description section or at least the design details (which should be standard across the class), set out on the Casablanca-class escort carrier page rather than this page? Mztourist (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mztourist: I'll eventually get around to a full rewrite for the class page. In the interim, I've ported the information found in the article over. Stikkyy (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so the design details should be deleted here then? And the table of embarked squadrons moved down into the Operational history section? Mztourist (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the design details should stay. Two paragraphs doesn't seems excessive, and is in line with the other articles that I'm using as reference. Stikkyy (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If you look at say Iowa-class battleship the design details are on the class page, not the individual ship pages. The design details is inconsistent across the individual Anzio-class ship pages. Mztourist (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's some inconsistencies between the Iowa-class ships as well. For example, the article for Iowa doesn't go over the design, while the article on Missouri has an exhaustive section about her specifications, under which [1] it passed FAR. Stikkyy (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't think that should be there. Are you gonna move the table of embarked squadrons? Mztourist (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the table to its own appendix section, what do you think? Stikkyy (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with the table move, I still don't think the design details should be there. Mztourist (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

« Return to A-Class review list

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Dumelow (talk)

Richard Thomas Glyn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another officer of the Anglo-Zulu War; Glyn also saw service in the Crimean War, the Indian Mutiny and the 9th Cape Frontier War. As a colonel in 1879 he had nominal command of the principal force during the first British invasion of Zululand but in practice was superseded in this role by Lieutenant-General Frederic Thesiger, 2nd Baron Chelmsford. Much of Glyn's regiment was wiped out in the Battle of Isandlwana (from which he was absent) and he afterwards suffered from mental illness. He commanded a brigade in the second British invasion that won the war but saw no further active duty before retiring as a general. Hoping to take this to FAC if it is successful here so would appreciate if you can be as thorough as possible in your reviews. Thanks in advance - Dumelow (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass licensing fixed on several images. Fyi, it's preferable to upload on commons unless the image is non-free in a non-US source country This image review can be reused at FAC. (t · c) buIdhe 17:41, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 05:11, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "He joined the 82nd Regiment of Foot (Prince of Wales's Volunteers) by purchasing an ensign's commission in 1850" - a rather nitpicky point, but this from the lead reads in a way that has Glyn as actively purchasing his own commission, but per the article body this was purchased for him by his father.

Good point, reworded - Dumelow (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "Glyn did not take part in combat directly but was present with his regiment at the Battle of the Great Redan on 8 September;[7][1] Although the British action was unsuccessful," - should the semicolon be a period?

Well spotted, changed - Dumelow (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• " the Cape Colony's expeditionary force withdrew from the Transkei in mid-November after suffering severe logistical problems" - The link to Transkei goes to an article focused solely on a late 20th century political entity so I don't think that it's particularly helpful here

Yes, good point. It's a bit complicated, it was known as "Kaffraria proper" in the period to distinguish it from British Kaffraria, and informally as the Transkei (as it was beyond the Great Kei river). I've changed this to " withdrew to the British side of the frontier" to keep it as simple as possible - Dumelow (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Link to laager as a term that will be unfamiliar to many?

Good idea, done - Dumelow (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is in good shape; I am not an expert on this subject matter. Hog Farm _Talk 02:18, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting as a non-expert. Hog Farm _Talk 23:52, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

« Return to A-Class review list

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): TheNuggeteer (talk)

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

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

• At "Soldiers commonly used Transocean aircraft for needed travel", mention that this was because Transocean had a contract with the DoD so that there's context why the soldiers used this airline specifically

• Add

• Is "Defense Visual Flight Rules" supposed to be capitalized? Also consider linking to visual flight rules.

• Linked; it was capitalized in the source.

• Link Air Route Traffic Control to List of U.S. Air Route Traffic Control Centers

• Linked

• Is 500 feet correct here? That seems too low.

• Yes, it is correct.

• The mention of the Korean War comes out of no where this far down in the article. Does this mean that they were being flown to Guam to later be shipped to fight in Korea? If so, this should be mentioned in the background section.

• The source that said this does not explain why; it just says that they were rotating to Guam and mentions the Korean War only three times.

• With most accident articles I've see, the aircraft/passenger/crew information should go before the accident section. This is so that the context of what aircraft is conducting the flight and who/how many people are onboard (for example, it says all 35 people died in the prior section when there was no mention of how many people were onboard before then)

• Moved

• DC-4 should be linked at its first mention in the background section instead of in the aircraft/passengers/crew section

• Linked

• Were all 30 passengers soldiers?

• Clarified

• The article should be added to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by loss of control since it is stated in the infobox, and maybe Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by weather

• Added loss of control, but weather is speculative, so I haven't added that.

@TheNuggeteer: This is my first time commenting on an ACR, so let's see how this goes. These are my comments from my first read through of this article. I'll read it through a second time after you respond and see if anything else comes up. I studied aviation so this topic caught my interest. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 03:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@PizzaKing13: Thank you so much for taking the time to review this! I have responded to all of your comments. Regards, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 09:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer: Article looks good to me on a second reading and all my comments have been addressed. I'm glad to support this nomination. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 16:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

« Return to A-Class review list

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

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

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

This article is in excellent shape. I'd like to offer the following comments:

• "traditional armored cruisers" - this distinction seems a bit obscure for the first sentence
  • A fair point
• " and marked the culmination" - the grammar is a bit off here
  • Reworded
• The third para of the lead should note that it was the squadron that crossed the Pacific, and not just these two ships.
  • Done
• "second command flagship" - should this be second in command?
  • Changed to "deputy commander flagship"
• For the design section, can anything more be said about habitability and the like? (e.g. did the ships have provisions for the crew given they were intended to operate a long way from home? Did they have decent ventilation for tropical climates?, etc)
  • Nothing I've seen so far. Dirk Nottelmann has been working his way through German cruiser designs in articles for Warship International for the last few years, but his most recent article is on SMS Prinz Heinrich (based on his schedule so far, I expect he'll do an article on the Prinz Adalbert-class cruisers in Q2 and the Roon-class cruisers in Q4, and then this class next year, so it'll be some time before I'll be able to update this article with additional details he provides)
• "As was customary for warships of the period" ... "As was the standard for German warships" - starting successive paras like this is a bit repetitive
  • Good point, reworded
• Some extra text is needed to connect the first para of the World War I section to the Battle of Coronel section.
  • Good catch - added a couple of sentences
• The literature on the Royal Australian Navy in World War I usually makes the point that the battlecruiser HMAS Australia was superior to both these ships, which is part of the reason they left the western Pacific soon after at the outbreak of war. It might be good to note this.
  • I'm not sure I want to include that, since it's a bit off-topic for this article (I think Spee's reasoning should be better explained in his bio, or perhaps the article on the East Asia Squadron, not here). I also think there's an element of nationalism there in Australian records; the presumed hostile attitude of Japan was far more serious (and in the end, Spee doesn't seem to have been all that intimidated by Australia, as when he made the sweep to the recently-ex-German Samoa, he did so having been informed that Australia may have been there).
• " attack the three British cruisers under the command of Admiral Christopher Cradock" - I'd suggest saying what this command was and where it was operating Nick-D (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is also a bit of an extraneous detail; I don't think readers need to know that Cradock commanded the 4th Cruiser Squadron to have a good, summarized understanding of these ships' activities (and the unit is mentioned in the articles on the individual ships)

As I'm going to be away for the next 3 weeks, I'll support this nomination subject to the comments above being addressed so as to not be a barrier to the article's promotion, and am happy to leave this to the discretion of the coordinators. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick, and as you see, I was fairly busy the last few weeks as well! Happy to discuss the last two points further if you feel strongly about them. Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article, just a handful of comments on the text:

• "During the design process for the class, the General Department issued a request that the new cruisers be capable of fighting in the line of battle"

The "General Department" has not been introduced, what was it?

Unfortunately, I don't have any good sources that discuss the departments of the Reichsmarineamt in any detail (save the Construction Department - I may take a stab at expanding the German Imperial Naval Office with what I can). There is a de.wiki article on the General Department, but it also has no sources we can borrow. At the least, I can link the de.wiki article for now.

• "The design staff considered adding a pair of these guns to the conning tower roof abreast of the bridge, but experience with the same arrangement on the Braunschweig-class battleships demonstrated the excessive blast effect interfered with control of the ships, and so those guns were suppressed in the Scharnhorst design"

I wasn't clear what "suppressed" meant here. The first part of the sentence led me to believe the guns were omitted but "suppressed" raised the possibility that some sort of device was fitted to the guns to reduce the blast effect.

Ha, that sense of "suppressed" hadn't occurred to me - but now I'd like to see a suppressor for battleship guns!

• I would consider stating David Lyon's nationality
• "When Scharnhorst served as a squadron flagship, had a larger crew, including an additional 14 officers and 62 men of the commanding admiral's staff"

Is a "she" missing before "had" here?

Yes indeed

• "Each engine drove a single propeller; the one on the center shaft on Scharnhorst was 4.7 m (15 ft 5 in) in diameter while the outer two were 5 m (16 ft 5 in) wide. Gneisenau's screws were slightly smaller, at 4.60 m (15 ft 1 in) wide on the center shaft and 4.80 m (15 ft 9 in) on the outer pair."

Not sure why the different levels of precision for the two sets of measurements here?

Mainly different practices I've used over the years - thought I had caught all of the ones with trailing zeroes, but apparently not!

• Worth linking Firebox (steam engine)?
• "The guns were supplied with a total of 700 rounds."

Is this for all guns or each? On second thoughts I think the "total" here makes this clear - Dumelow (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked slightly so hopefully a little clearer now

• "this portion was between 40–55 mm (1.6–2.2 in) thick"

In British English I think this would be written as either: "this portion was 40–55 mm (1.6–2.2 in) thick" or ""this portion was between 40 mm (1.6in) and 55 mm (2.2 in) thick", but this might be OK in American English?

Good catch, probably something that was rewritten one too many times - fixed

• "At the start of World War I, the two ships were in the Caroline Islands on a routine cruise; the rest of Spee's squadron was dispersed around the Pacific"

I'd be tempted to give a date here and for the declaration of war by Japan mentioned in the next sentence.

Good idea, and I reworded the second line since Spee's departure occurred before Japan's formal declaration

• "Spee also intended to attack the three British cruisers under the command of Admiral Christopher Cradock, and any British shipping encountered"

Consider clarifying where Craddock's cruisers were at the time

Done

• "At approximately 17:00 on 1 November 1914, the East Asia Squadron encountered Cradock's ships off Coronel."

I think it's worth stating where Coronel is

Good idea

• "The light cruiser Nürnberg then closed to point-blank range"

Nürnberg has not been mentioned before, presumably she was part of the East Asia Squadron at the start of the war?

Added a mention earlier

• "The Scharnhorst class was the last class of traditional armored cruisers built by the German Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy)"

I am not sure that this statement in the lead is fully cited in the article (the closest I could find was the quote from Lyon that they were "the last pair")

This was removed per Nick's comment above

• "Scharnhorst relieved the old armored cruiser Fürst Bismarck as the squadron flagship, which had been on station since 1900."

In the lead is not supported by the article text

Trimmed the lead slightly and added a mention of Fürst Bismarck to the body

• "Both ships had short careers; after the outbreak of World War I, they departed the East Asia and crossed the Pacific in an attempt to return home, bombarding the French colony of Papeete on the way"

Something awry with the wording around "departed the East Asia"

Fixed

• The "52 officers 788 enlisted men" stated in the infobox appears to apply only to Scharnhorst when acting as flagship, would it be better to give the standard crew complement?
• Turret armour is given as "180 mm (7.1 in)" in the infobox and "170 mm (6.7 in)" in the main text

170 is correct, good catch. Parsecboy (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

« Return to A-Class review list

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): History6042 (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My source says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

« Return to A-Class review list

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): PhoenixCaelestis (talk)

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

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

Note: Since this review was opened, PhoenixCaelestis (now @Phoenix:) was banned for sock puppetry. Since we planned on co-nominating the article together for FAC, I will close out this review. GGOTCC 20:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • • Done.

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

  • • Done.

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

  • • Autocorrect, undoubtedly. Fixed.

  Link Eastern Sea Frontier.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All good, works for me haha. ~

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

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

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

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

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

• Typo, fixed.

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

• Linked.

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

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

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

• Yes, corrected that.

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

• Typo, fixed.

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

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

• That's me misreading. Whoops.

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

• Removed the bit of stopping for an inspection.

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

• Fixed.

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

• Done.

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

• Fixed.

• The "Second Happy Time" section is excessively long

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

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

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

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

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

• Ok, reworded.

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

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

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

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

• Removed the extra words.

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

• Changed.

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

• Fixed.

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

• Yes, meant to have 1943. Fixed.

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

• Fair point, removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• These are the specific waters that Dione patrolled.

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

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

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

• Accessed it while looking through Commons.

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

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

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

  Thank you for the responses! The image issues on my side have been resolved, and your responses have been satisfactory. Sorry for the delay, I have been busy with....stuff. GGOTCC 00:40, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

« Return to A-Class review list

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): 11WB (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

« Return to A-Class review list

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Thelifeofan413 (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

Further comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have removed all of the references based on his two books, and removed dubious claims. Are there any other thing I should do. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you there? Thelifeofan413 (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Thelifeofan413, for pinging @Dudley Miles or any other user, you have to tag them. Matarisvan (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you a lot. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

• The Sawyer ref is wrongly shown. It should be as a chapter by Keynes in a book edited by Sawyer.
• Ref 38 charter 905. This is WP:OR and does not support the text.
• Ditto ref 39 Domesday Book.
• Some of your citations of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are OR. It is legitimate to quote the ASC citing it inline, not to cite it as the sole source for a statement as it it requires interpretation by a reliable secondary source.
• Ref 32 jebbo does not appear to be a reliable source and does not appear to support the text.
• Ref 53 Blunt et al. The source is nothing to do with the text cited.
• I have just looked for obvious errors, and the article will need a thorough source review. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

« Return to A-Class review list

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Euryalus (talk)

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

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

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

General

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

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

Construction

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

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

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

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

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

Should be "fully-built", I think?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair enough

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fine by me

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

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

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

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

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

Looks good to me

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

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

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

Yep

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should be "privately-built", I think

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

Would probably benefit from a link to Wood drying

• • Done

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

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

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

Seven Years' War

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

Yep, I missed that, thanks

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

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

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

Thanks, that's good info.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peacetime service

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

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

• • Done

American Revolutionary War

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

Not sure if you've got around to this?

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

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

• • Done

Glanure has quotation marks instead of italics

• • Fixed

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

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

Any clue as to the nationality of this vessel?

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

I think this should be "the Admiralty's"

• • Done

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

French Revolutionary Wars

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

Think this should be "the Admiralty"

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

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

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

Lead

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

As previous, amend for compliance with MOS:NUMNOTES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infobox

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

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

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

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

Three images here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Thanks will try a reword for this article. In researching Jackal I've also found sources indicating the French merchants who bought her from the mutineers renamed her "La Vengeur" rather than "Boulogne." Possibly she was re-renamed over the next twelve months. Or maybe there were two separate Jackal's, as you suggest. Will continue the hunt. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Done as suggested, let me know what you think. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: wishing you a Happy New Year wherever you are. Have vague plans today to work on the HMS Jackal draft I started last year, and that reminded me to come by here to see if you had any further views on Lizard. No worries if not, it's just one of several mildly engaging projects to pursue over my sunny southern summer. Regards. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

« Return to A-Class review list

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): PizzaKing13 (talk)

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

Another Salvadoran coup! I currently have the 1979 coup that ended the Salvadoran military dictatorship up for an A-class review, and now I'm putting up the coup that started that dictatorship for review. The 1931 coup overthrew Arturo Araujo who won El Salvador's first ever real, democratic election and installed his vice president, Brigadier General Maximiliano Hernández Martínez, as provisional president. (All mentions of "general" are because I was unable to verify whether or not they were brigadier generals or divisional generals. I could only verify that Martínez was a brigadier general.) This article meets all the GA criteria and I believe it meets the A-class criteria. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 04:42, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Looking at the prose:

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

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

• Changed tense

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

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

• Changed tense

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

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

• Changed

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

Something is awry in the first clause here

• Rephrased

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

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

• Rephrased

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

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

• Fixed

• "El Zapote barracks, where the coup began"

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

• Added date

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

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

• Changed

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

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

• Removed

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

Do we know the name of the successor?

• Yes, Salvador López Rochac. Added

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

• Linked all at first mention

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

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

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

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

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

• Changed

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

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

• Done

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

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

• Done

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

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

• Removed the sentence

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

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

« Return to A-Class review list

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): GGOTCC (talk)

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

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

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

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

Some comments. The article looks great to me:

• The ships were named after the rivers and not the states?
  • Yes! Back before the Civil War, the US Navy wanted to find uniquely "American" names for ships, which were often rivers (Potomac-class frigates) or Native American tribes (Wampanoag-class frigates). It was only after a Civil War was a nominally unified naming scheme introduced that emphasized state names.
• "By 1839, both the French and Royal navies had at least 15 steam warships in service" The Royal Navy had 27 steam vessels in 1836 and 80 paddlewheel steamships by 1842. [2]
  • This is a good point, but I am unsure where to add the claim without either backtracking or accelerating the timeline. The source is true but is specific to 1839 to directly compared the USN and RN.
• "sistership" -> "sister ship"
  • Done
• Space after the following full stop.
  • Done, thanks!
• Link "curt-martial" to "Courts-martial of the United States"?
  • Done
• "President Tyler" -> "Tyler" ? (MOS:SAMESURNAME)
  • Done
• "Captain Newton" -> "Newton" ?
  • Done
• "the disaster was due to the steam engines" Meaning that the use of steam was still considered controversial?
• Since this article is in US English, should it be Gulf of America?
  • Gulf of Mexico is more common, even in American English. I have also seen pushback against the term here on Wikipedia.

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

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

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

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

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

Hi again @Dumelow! Back at the college, I got the sources I need. I believe I have addressed each of your points, with the ones I have not replied to achieved with larger rewrites of sections. My sincere apologies for the delay; feel free to take as long as you need to reply. GGOTCC 04:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Development and design

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

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

• • Diagonal, so a bit of both. I will add the detail
• "Armament consisted of an eight Paixhan 8-inch (20 cm) gun broadside that fired 68-pound (31 kg) shells and two bow-mounted Paixhan 10-inch (25 cm) guns that launched 120-pound (54 kg) rounds."

May be worth linking Bow (watercraft)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "an average speed between 7–10 knots"

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

• • "Average speed of" works the best, thanks for the recommendation!
• "Each paddle had a length of 6 feet (1.8 m) and a width of 3 feet (0.91 m); there were 21 paddles on each wheel"

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

• • How is "There were 21 paddles on each wheel; every paddle had a length...?"

In the Americas

• "Her engines were designed by Charles Copeland,"

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

• • Done!
• "she was completed and commissioned"

Worth linking Ship commissioning here

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

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

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

Consider avoiding repetition of "operate" here

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

Which critics?

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

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

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

I would omit the second "the Navy" here

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

I would use "were a part" here

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

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

• • From the timeline given by the sources, it could have have either been at the Washington or Norfolk Navy Yards. None of them specify and the wording in unclear.
• "On either 5 or 6 August 1843, work was complete and she embarked US Minister to China Caleb Cushing, who was sailing to Alexandria, Egypt. "

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

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

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

• • Does "Fayal in the Azores" work?

Destruction

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

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

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

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

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

What position did Clum hold?

• • "Coal-heaver", which is very un-envious. I added the information from the source, but I am unsure if the USNI article refers to Clum's job title or what he was doing at the moment (ie. he could be a seaman that was loading coal).
• "The first lieutenant responded"

Do we know his name?

• • The first-hand account at the bottom of the page mentions more names, but I see no need to name-drop otherwise unnotable people that are not referred to again.
• "Missouri was flooded with 8 feet (2.4 m) of water and rested at an angle on the ocean floor"

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

• • Harbor floor also makes sense. But this makes me wonder where the harbor begins and where it ends?
• "Congress had also thanked the Governor of Gibraltar for aiding the crew, and she was slowly dismantled"

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

• • Ha! True, I split the sentence into each idea.
• "Cushing traveled China, and arrived in February 1844."

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

• • Finally got my hands on some sources that explain it (and apparently Archive had a copy...) I added it to the article, but he went overland to Suez, took a steamship to India, and met up with another American frigate for the trip to China.
• "Her chief engineer was also court-martialed, and was suspended for one year. His punishment was suspended eight months into the sentence."

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

• • Good point, I reworded that!

There's four images used here..

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

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

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

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

• File:Caleb Cushing.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• It seems odd to have the cost in the infobox but not the article.
  • Valid, I'll also include it.
• "a fire that consumed the ship overnight ... her magazine detonated, which destroyed the ship by morning." It reads as if she were destroyed twice.
• "and a barque rig with 19,000 square feet (1,800 m2) of canvas." If you could work the word 'sails' in somewhere it would help the uninitiated.
  • I replaced 'canvas' with sails and linked the next time the word appears
• "diagonal iron straps intended to strengthen the hull." Do you use the word "intended" because they didn't in fact do that?
• "Armament consisted of an eight Paixhan 8-inch (20 cm) gun broadside". Would a broadside of 8 guns not mean 16 in total? (Plus 2 = a total armament of 18 guns?)
• How does 'Armament consisted of four Paixhan 8-inch (20 cm) guns on each broadside" sound? There was 10 guns, and I see how the old wording is confusing
• "While otherwise similar, Missouri was praised as having an interior, "much superior" to that of her sister ship Mississippi." is it known what the differences were?
• "an average speed of 7–10 knots". I don't see how an average can be a range.
• "She was assigned to the Home Squadron, who complained about her high costs to coal and operate." A squadron can't be a "who". Is it known what high operating costs there were other than coal?
  • I changed this to 'which', good point! While the source does not mention the high costs, I assume repairs and engine maintenance were also costly.
• "which was responded to by the ship of the line HMS Malabar". Perhaps mention this ship's nationality.
  • Done
• I may just be me, but "crews from Gibraltar" jars - Gibraltar itself not having any crews.
  • Also a valid point
• "paymaster's materials". Just curious, but as an auditor, what "materials" would you expect a paymaster to possess?
  • The source only mentions the logs and bullion. I initially did not include this as I did not know there was an article for bullion coin.
• "and achieved his goal of forcing China to establish several treaty ports with the US". Maybe 'and achieved his goal by forcing China to establish several treaty ports with the US'? Just a thought.
  • Done, thank you!

Great stuff - get it to FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the kind words, @Gog the Mild:! The only thing I have questions about is your edit to the infobox image. I believe "abeam" is the correct term, but wanted to ask if "a beam" is better. Thanks! GGOTCC 19:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:beam: definition 5 - "(nautical) The direction across a vessel, perpendicular to fore-and-aft." Actually, looking at it properly, I think both are grammatically wrong. "Abeam" means (I think) as seen from on the vessel (There was a fine view abeam of the ship), while beam means (I think) the side of a ship. It would probably be easiest all round, and more understandable to more readers, to say 'A side view ...' :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want to facepalm so hard for using "abeam" so many times incorrectly...that description makes a lot of sense. Let's go with your recommendation for the sake of not awaking the grammar police.

Thanks again! :) GGOTCC 22:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

« Return to A-Class review list

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): LeChatiliers Pupper (talk)

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

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

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

--

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a few:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Hog Farm, it has been more than a month since LCP responded. Any further comments? Do you still reckon the article needs GOCE? Matarisvan (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I need to take another look - it will be several days at the earliest before I have time. Hog Farm _Talk 00:45, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Clauzel enlisted in the 43rd Infantry as one of the volunteers of 1791." - source (1911 EB) does not seem to mention the 43rd Infantry?
• "Masséna's failures saw him replaced by Marmont," - does not seem to be explicitly stated in the source
• "Clauzel was amongst those who settled in the Vine and Olive Colony in modern-day Alabama" - either something's wrong with the linked copy of the text of the 1911 EB or this material isn't in there at all, despite being sourced to the 1911 EB
• "He sat on the left and voted for the Address of the 221, which expressed disapproval of the ultra-royalist administration. " - is part of a short paragraph sourced solely to the 1911 EB but again does not appear to be contained in that source
• "However, due to adverse weather and determined resistance from Ahmad Bey, the 1836 attempt to seize Constantine failed" - again, unless there's something wrong with the linked copy the 1911 EB just states that the attempt failed, without attributing it to specific causes

I still think this requires a fair bit of work to get to the A-Class standard, if this many issues came up solely from checking the one source. As an additional note, if you're hoping to get this to FAC eventually, the reliance on the 1911 EB and various 19th-century French works will be a problem at that level. Hog Farm _Talk 01:33, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment by Dumelow

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

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

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

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

Please add new requests below this line