Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 62

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62


ACR to-do list for January 2024

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


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

Napoleon and A-class status

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

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

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

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

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

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

BT-13 Vultee Valiant - N67496

Hello!

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

1942 BT-13 Vultee Valiant - N67496

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

ACR backlog

We've got 7 ACRs still open from 2023:

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

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

AutoCheck report for February

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

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

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

ACR for Crusading movement ready for closure

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

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

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

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

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

Big Black River Bridge

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

New academy page

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

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

AutoCheck report for March

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

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

Awards

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

AutoCheck report for April

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

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

ACR to-do list for May 2024

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

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

AutoCheck report for May

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

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

ACR to-do list for July 2024

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

AutoCheck report for June

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

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

change to 96th Infantry page?

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

Error in strike through; June auto check unfinished

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

AutoCheck report for July

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

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

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

Election time

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

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

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

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

AutoCheck report for August

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

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

Help Joining this Group

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

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

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

USS Texas (BB-35) A-Class reappraisal

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

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

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

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

AutoCheck report for September

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/Archive_62&oldid=1253050901"