Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests
Requests for assessment
[edit]Editors can self-assess articles against the five B-class criteria(FAQ) up to and including C-Class. If you have made significant improvements to an article against one or more of B-class criteria and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below, specifying which criteria you have worked on. If you feel unable to assess against one or more of the B-class criteria, please say so when posting. Requests for formal A-Class review should be made at the review department. Please consider entering articles you have improved in the military history article writing contest.
Experienced assessors are encouraged to take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#AutoCheck report for June and check a few of ≈ B-Class assessments. Feel free to downgrade them if you consider they don't meet one or more the criteria. Please also delete any that you have checked. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Assessment, whose articles often overlap with military history topics.
- Surface Fleet Review Australian navy procurement document. Created this article and put in everything in it, I thought it would be worthy of a B-class but because I have created it I may have inflated it a bit. Thanks DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Edit: just had a look at some other B-class articles and thought that SFR is probably not worth b-class. I would appreciate if an editor could tell me whether it is worth a C-class or if it should remain at start. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am leaving a message on your talk page about additional citations and perhaps a minor tweak which can bring this up to B class. Rather than leave it with a lower rating, I think we should leave the request open and you can note that the article has been revised and ready for assessment. Donner60 (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @DeadlyRampage26: I also will leave this comment on your talk page and will remove this request soon. The article as written contains certain conclusions, predictions and speculations. While I only noted the need for citations in a previous note to you, without citations, I cannot tell whether these statements are synthesis, your conclusions or are supported by the sources. Citations would cure this. So I am leaving this at start class. If you think this is a misjudgment or too harsh with respect to a C-class rating, feel free to ask another coordinator or active former coordinator or coordinator emeritus for another assessment or opinion. Otherwise, submit a new request for assessment after you have time to provide the citations. If you wish me to place citation needed tags rather than just give the general examples that I noted previously, please let me know. Donner60 (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am leaving a message on your talk page about additional citations and perhaps a minor tweak which can bring this up to B class. Rather than leave it with a lower rating, I think we should leave the request open and you can note that the article has been revised and ready for assessment. Donner60 (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Edit: just had a look at some other B-class articles and thought that SFR is probably not worth b-class. I would appreciate if an editor could tell me whether it is worth a C-class or if it should remain at start. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Defence Honours and Awards scandal. The mil-hist bot assessed it as start with the criteria for 1 & 2 not met, I've checked the inline citations and fixed up any that I found. For point 2) Coverage and accuracy, I've added what I could find with RS's going back to 1993 when the subject matter all started. I'd love for someone to check it over, eventually I want to get it up to A class. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 00:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Nick-D that the title does not seem to fit the situation. It appears to me to be more like a controversy than a scandal - unless perhaps that is how it is viewed by reliable sources. The lede (introduction) needs to be expanded to summarize the main points of the article. Otherwise, I think it has been revised enough to pass B class. Donner60 (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- When Nick-D said that it was called '2024 review of the Defence Honours and Awards system', by definition it seems to fit (Senator Roberts called General Campbell guilty of stolen valour indirectly during a senate hearing), but I'm completely open for it to change. Cheers, I'll work on the lead. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 07:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- No politician is a reliable source for rhetoric, and this is especially the case for extremists like Senator Roberts. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Nford24 and Nick-D: True. That should also be addressed. Donner60 (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- No politician is a reliable source for rhetoric, and this is especially the case for extremists like Senator Roberts. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- When Nick-D said that it was called '2024 review of the Defence Honours and Awards system', by definition it seems to fit (Senator Roberts called General Campbell guilty of stolen valour indirectly during a senate hearing), but I'm completely open for it to change. Cheers, I'll work on the lead. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 07:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Nick-D that the title does not seem to fit the situation. It appears to me to be more like a controversy than a scandal - unless perhaps that is how it is viewed by reliable sources. The lede (introduction) needs to be expanded to summarize the main points of the article. Otherwise, I think it has been revised enough to pass B class. Donner60 (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Battle of Thorgo, This article was recently assessed and accepted as a part of assessement during submission for Draft and was rated C-class on content assessment scale, I have done Many edits and brought it here for reassessment, Thanks. Rahim231 (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)- The bot had already rated this B class for the military history project. I made a few minor, non-substantive edits and agree with the bot. I tried to change the assessments for all projects with a banner shell. When I did that, the page informed me that there was a conflict with the articles for creation assessment and an attempt should be made to resolve it. I had not encountered something like this before. I could find no way to resolve it except to leave the two assessments as they are and not add a banner shell for the other projects. I don't see why an articles for creation assessment should not yield to a later assessment after the article is improved but it seems they must both remain on the page. You can be assured that the assessment is B class for this project. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 07:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Raid on Grand HarbourB1 pls Keith-264 (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- CN tag in the infobox. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Keith-264: Citation provided. Now B class. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Frederic B. Butler- overhauled article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)- Assessed B class for military history and biography. Odd that this did not have a military history project banner previously. Comment on your talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Please also check the military history assessment backlog for articles needing assessment.