| Revision as of 06:37, 29 December 2024 editDonner60 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers235,972 edits →Requests for assessment: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:46, 3 January 2025 edit undoMisterBee1966 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers189,957 edits →Requests for assessment | ||
| (56 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| Please remember to sign your requests. | Please remember to sign your requests. | ||
| *<s>] |
* <s>]</s> This has been expanded, with more sources. Last assessed in 2007. Thanks. ] (]) 19:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *:Bot got there first and assessed B class. I agree. Comprehensive. As info, if you are not familiar with requesting a good article class review and you want to do so, the instructions are here: ]. Thanks. ] (]) 04:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Thanks for looking at this. What I do not understand is that as of 20:53, 24 October 2009, all elements except one were B class. The bot seems to have upheld the original rating, and it seems inconsistent that it has a legacy rating of C, whereas I would have thought the referencing is B standard all these years later. Is there a reason why the legacy rating does not match the bot rating, of C and B respectively? Can you please explain why there is this clash? Thanks for the help provided. ] (]) 22:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Personally, I don't think there is enough source material out there, to warrant spending the time on the article to raise it to a Good Article class, but think that what is currently there is worthy of a B class. ] (]) 22:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::{{ping|Keith H99}} I should have seen the inconsistency. I have changed b1 to yes so there is no inconsistency in the assessment or on the page. I have seen such inconsistencies a few times when the two bots (cewbot and milhistbot) give inconsistent ratings. Milhistbot is usually correct; sometimes a manual adjustment is necessary, however. I also have seen milhistbot not recognize that b1 had been satisfied because of the placement of the citation at the beginning of a quote or table but that does not appear to have been the situation here. Milhistbot originally gave the article a B rating but with a b1=no. This ultimately ended up as a C, possibly when cewbot rated it as B but noticed the b1=no. I am far from an expert on bots so my view may not be what happened. The bottom line is that there was an error as to b1 even though the overall assessment was accurate and I have made them consistent. Sorry I can't be more definitive. Great article in any event. ] (]) 00:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Many thanks for this. It is the most recent human assessment vs bot assessment clash that I have encountered. I rewrote the article 3 years ago. It was an awful nationalistic POV, with dollops of fantasy and very few sources. Happy New Year! ] (]) 00:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::It wasn't the bots' fault. Back in 2009 I gave it a b1=no (correct at the time) but class=B (correct at the time), which was later rendered as C class when that was introduced the following year. The cewbot came along in 2024 to add the banner shell and adopted the majority class rating of B (our template is the only one). Then it noted the inconsistency. ] ] 19:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Thanks for clearing this up. I am glad I mentioned that I was not an expert on the bot and that was my surmise. ] (]) 20:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * <s>]</s>, one found in my trawl of ]. I've not looked much at the article text beyond a quick tidy and expand of the lead. I have added a portrait and infobox, should meet b5 now at least - ] (]) 14:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| :*B5 now met, B-Class checklist updated. Cheers, ] (]) 01:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *] - another American Civil War general, just created, could use a check against B-class criteria. Thanks in advance ...] (]) 03:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Bot assessed C class. Bot determined that coverage and accuracy criteria not met. I suggest adding a few sentences to the lead and separating the biography section into Early life, American Civil War and Later life sections, though they will be brief. APPLETONS’ CYCLOPAEDIA OF AMERICAN BIOGRAPHY VOL. VI. SUNDERLAND—ZU RITA has an entry for him. This appears to have some additional information. Since it was published in 1888, he was still alive. I earlier downloaded information from this book since it is available online. I was gathering information on the few generals who still needed biographies but did not find time to proceed. I don't remember a reason but I didn't note the online info for citation so I cannot readily add it here. I think it can be easily found, however. ] (]) 19:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:: Bot has instructions not to issue a B to an article with a one-sentence lead. Also, i ] ] 19:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>]</s>: a new article for a coastal defence fort in New Zealand, please assess. ] (]) 09:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *: B class. Consider sorting the references into alphabetical order. ] ] 19:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>]</s> new article. ] ] 02:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Please fix “He graduated from the United States Military Academy Field ArtilleryWest Point, New York, in April 1917 and was commissioned in the Infantry Branch.” in the lead. It is confusing as heck and can be reworded better. That’s what I’ve seen so far, just skimming, if I see anything else, I’ll let you know. I’m kind of in a time constraint right now so I’m doing this really quickly | |||
| *:] (]) 04:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:1. Change: William Ormond "Bruce" Butler was born in Marshall, Virginia, on 23 September 1895, the son of Robert Ormond Butler, an engineer, and Mary McGeorge née Hume. —> William Ormond "Bruce" Butler was born in Marshall, Virginia, on 23 September 1895, <code>to Robert Ormond Butler, an engineer, and Mary McGeorge (née Hume).</code> | |||
| *:2. “He was ranked 33rd in the class of April 1917 '''(two ahead of classmate J. Lawton Collins)'''” Relevance of the bolded text? If this isn’t relevant to anything to the article then I’d recommend removal. | |||
| *:3. “Between the wars” title should be changed to “Interlude between World Wars”, seems more accurate and be more professional. Although it could be better, this is the best thing I can come up with at the moment. ] (]) 04:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{ping|Hawkeye7}} Bot assessed as B class. I agree. Comments by a new user, not an experienced one. Needs much more experience and more familiarity with military history before venturing into assessment of military history aritcles. Not knowing who J. Lawton Collins and why this might be important is one flaw. Other comments are nitpicking that could be addressed by article edits if useful, and reverted if not. Not part of the assessment process. ] (]) 19:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::: I have corrected the error in the lead. ] ] 19:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * ] — Please assess, thanks ] (]) 09:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Changed bot assessment to BL class. Bot noted b1 not met. I see no deficiency in citations and assume the bot thought the list key should have a citation. It doesn't need one. Thanks. ] (]) 19:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:: Can we get a reference for the two spitfires shot down over London on 11 September 1940? ] ] 19:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | *:::{{ping|MisterBee1966|Hawkeye7}} Thanks. Missed those. Reading through too fast, I guess. ] (]) 20:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| *::::{{ping|MisterBee1966|Hawkeye7}} Rolled back premature reassessment; had it up already and inadvertently clicked to add it. ] (]) 20:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::{{ping|Donner60|Hawkeye7}} The claims on 11 September 1940 are linked to the source by Mathews and Foreman. Please see the legend, the respective column, and the section heading. Cheers ] (]) 20:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * <s>]</s>, one from ], I added some relevant images that might help it achieve the b5 criteria? - ] (]) 10:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:B class. I have added a subsection and sentence that these are called Commissaries & Exchanges in the United States with a citation to a US Department of Defense website. Thanks. ] (]) 20:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ----- | |||
| ''Please also check the ] for articles needing assessment.'' | ''Please also check the ] for articles needing assessment.'' | ||
Latest revision as of 20:46, 3 January 2025
Requests for assessment
ShortcutEditors can self-assess articles against the five B-class criteria 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 Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#AutoCheck report for December 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spaceflight/Assessment, whose articles often overlap with military history topics.
ADD NEW REQUESTS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS SECTION AND BEFORE THE LINE FOR THE BACKLOG CHECK REQUEST
Please remember to sign your requests.
Siege of Fort St. Philip (1815)This has been expanded, with more sources. Last assessed in 2007. Thanks. Keith H99 (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)- Bot got there first and assessed B class. I agree. Comprehensive. As info, if you are not familiar with requesting a good article class review and you want to do so, the instructions are here: Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations/Instructions. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking at this. What I do not understand is that as of 20:53, 24 October 2009, all elements except one were B class. The bot seems to have upheld the original rating, and it seems inconsistent that it has a legacy rating of C, whereas I would have thought the referencing is B standard all these years later. Is there a reason why the legacy rating does not match the bot rating, of C and B respectively? Can you please explain why there is this clash? Thanks for the help provided. Keith H99 (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't think there is enough source material out there, to warrant spending the time on the article to raise it to a Good Article class, but think that what is currently there is worthy of a B class. Keith H99 (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Keith H99: I should have seen the inconsistency. I have changed b1 to yes so there is no inconsistency in the assessment or on the page. I have seen such inconsistencies a few times when the two bots (cewbot and milhistbot) give inconsistent ratings. Milhistbot is usually correct; sometimes a manual adjustment is necessary, however. I also have seen milhistbot not recognize that b1 had been satisfied because of the placement of the citation at the beginning of a quote or table but that does not appear to have been the situation here. Milhistbot originally gave the article a B rating but with a b1=no. This ultimately ended up as a C, possibly when cewbot rated it as B but noticed the b1=no. I am far from an expert on bots so my view may not be what happened. The bottom line is that there was an error as to b1 even though the overall assessment was accurate and I have made them consistent. Sorry I can't be more definitive. Great article in any event. Donner60 (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Many thanks for this. It is the most recent human assessment vs bot assessment clash that I have encountered. I rewrote the article 3 years ago. It was an awful nationalistic POV, with dollops of fantasy and very few sources. Happy New Year! Keith H99 (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It wasn't the bots' fault. Back in 2009 I gave it a b1=no (correct at the time) but class=B (correct at the time), which was later rendered as C class when that was introduced the following year. The cewbot came along in 2024 to add the banner shell and adopted the majority class rating of B (our template is the only one). Then it noted the inconsistency. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing this up. I am glad I mentioned that I was not an expert on the bot and that was my surmise. Donner60 (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- It wasn't the bots' fault. Back in 2009 I gave it a b1=no (correct at the time) but class=B (correct at the time), which was later rendered as C class when that was introduced the following year. The cewbot came along in 2024 to add the banner shell and adopted the majority class rating of B (our template is the only one). Then it noted the inconsistency. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Many thanks for this. It is the most recent human assessment vs bot assessment clash that I have encountered. I rewrote the article 3 years ago. It was an awful nationalistic POV, with dollops of fantasy and very few sources. Happy New Year! Keith H99 (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Keith H99: I should have seen the inconsistency. I have changed b1 to yes so there is no inconsistency in the assessment or on the page. I have seen such inconsistencies a few times when the two bots (cewbot and milhistbot) give inconsistent ratings. Milhistbot is usually correct; sometimes a manual adjustment is necessary, however. I also have seen milhistbot not recognize that b1 had been satisfied because of the placement of the citation at the beginning of a quote or table but that does not appear to have been the situation here. Milhistbot originally gave the article a B rating but with a b1=no. This ultimately ended up as a C, possibly when cewbot rated it as B but noticed the b1=no. I am far from an expert on bots so my view may not be what happened. The bottom line is that there was an error as to b1 even though the overall assessment was accurate and I have made them consistent. Sorry I can't be more definitive. Great article in any event. Donner60 (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't think there is enough source material out there, to warrant spending the time on the article to raise it to a Good Article class, but think that what is currently there is worthy of a B class. Keith H99 (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking at this. What I do not understand is that as of 20:53, 24 October 2009, all elements except one were B class. The bot seems to have upheld the original rating, and it seems inconsistent that it has a legacy rating of C, whereas I would have thought the referencing is B standard all these years later. Is there a reason why the legacy rating does not match the bot rating, of C and B respectively? Can you please explain why there is this clash? Thanks for the help provided. Keith H99 (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bot got there first and assessed B class. I agree. Comprehensive. As info, if you are not familiar with requesting a good article class review and you want to do so, the instructions are here: Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations/Instructions. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Geoffrey Congreve, one found in my trawl of Category:Military history articles needing attention only to supporting materials. I've not looked much at the article text beyond a quick tidy and expand of the lead. I have added a portrait and infobox, should meet b5 now at least - Dumelow (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- B5 now met, B-Class checklist updated. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Davis Tillson - another American Civil War general, just created, could use a check against B-class criteria. Thanks in advance ...GELongstreet (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bot assessed C class. Bot determined that coverage and accuracy criteria not met. I suggest adding a few sentences to the lead and separating the biography section into Early life, American Civil War and Later life sections, though they will be brief. APPLETONS’ CYCLOPAEDIA OF AMERICAN BIOGRAPHY VOL. VI. SUNDERLAND—ZU RITA has an entry for him. This appears to have some additional information. Since it was published in 1888, he was still alive. I earlier downloaded information from this book since it is available online. I was gathering information on the few generals who still needed biographies but did not find time to proceed. I don't remember a reason but I didn't note the online info for citation so I cannot readily add it here. I think it can be easily found, however. Donner60 (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bot has instructions not to issue a B to an article with a one-sentence lead. Also, i Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bot assessed C class. Bot determined that coverage and accuracy criteria not met. I suggest adding a few sentences to the lead and separating the biography section into Early life, American Civil War and Later life sections, though they will be brief. APPLETONS’ CYCLOPAEDIA OF AMERICAN BIOGRAPHY VOL. VI. SUNDERLAND—ZU RITA has an entry for him. This appears to have some additional information. Since it was published in 1888, he was still alive. I earlier downloaded information from this book since it is available online. I was gathering information on the few generals who still needed biographies but did not find time to proceed. I don't remember a reason but I didn't note the online info for citation so I cannot readily add it here. I think it can be easily found, however. Donner60 (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Fort Resolution, Auckland: a new article for a coastal defence fort in New Zealand, please assess. Zawed (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)- B class. Consider sorting the references into alphabetical order. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
William Ormond Butlernew article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)- Please fix “He graduated from the United States Military Academy Field ArtilleryWest Point, New York, in April 1917 and was commissioned in the Infantry Branch.” in the lead. It is confusing as heck and can be reworded better. That’s what I’ve seen so far, just skimming, if I see anything else, I’ll let you know. I’m kind of in a time constraint right now so I’m doing this really quickly
- Reader of Information (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- 1. Change: William Ormond "Bruce" Butler was born in Marshall, Virginia, on 23 September 1895, the son of Robert Ormond Butler, an engineer, and Mary McGeorge née Hume. —> William Ormond "Bruce" Butler was born in Marshall, Virginia, on 23 September 1895,
to Robert Ormond Butler, an engineer, and Mary McGeorge (née Hume). - 2. “He was ranked 33rd in the class of April 1917 (two ahead of classmate J. Lawton Collins)” Relevance of the bolded text? If this isn’t relevant to anything to the article then I’d recommend removal.
- 3. “Between the wars” title should be changed to “Interlude between World Wars”, seems more accurate and be more professional. Although it could be better, this is the best thing I can come up with at the moment. Reader of Information (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: Bot assessed as B class. I agree. Comments by a new user, not an experienced one. Needs much more experience and more familiarity with military history before venturing into assessment of military history aritcles. Not knowing who J. Lawton Collins and why this might be important is one flaw. Other comments are nitpicking that could be addressed by article edits if useful, and reverted if not. Not part of the assessment process. Donner60 (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have corrected the error in the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: Bot assessed as B class. I agree. Comments by a new user, not an experienced one. Needs much more experience and more familiarity with military history before venturing into assessment of military history aritcles. Not knowing who J. Lawton Collins and why this might be important is one flaw. Other comments are nitpicking that could be addressed by article edits if useful, and reverted if not. Not part of the assessment process. Donner60 (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- List of aerial victories claimed by Herbert Ihlefeld — Please assess, thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Changed bot assessment to BL class. Bot noted b1 not met. I see no deficiency in citations and assume the bot thought the list key should have a citation. It doesn't need one. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can we get a reference for the two spitfires shot down over London on 11 September 1940? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @MisterBee1966 and Hawkeye7: Thanks. Missed those. Reading through too fast, I guess. Donner60 (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @MisterBee1966 and Hawkeye7: Rolled back premature reassessment; had it up already and inadvertently clicked to add it. Donner60 (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Donner60 and Hawkeye7: The claims on 11 September 1940 are linked to the source by Mathews and Foreman. Please see the legend, the respective column, and the section heading. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @MisterBee1966 and Hawkeye7: Rolled back premature reassessment; had it up already and inadvertently clicked to add it. Donner60 (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @MisterBee1966 and Hawkeye7: Thanks. Missed those. Reading through too fast, I guess. Donner60 (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can we get a reference for the two spitfires shot down over London on 11 September 1940? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Changed bot assessment to BL class. Bot noted b1 not met. I see no deficiency in citations and assume the bot thought the list key should have a citation. It doesn't need one. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Military cooperative, one from Category:Military history articles needing attention only to supporting materials, I added some relevant images that might help it achieve the b5 criteria? - Dumelow (talk) 10:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)- B class. I have added a subsection and sentence that these are called Commissaries & Exchanges in the United States with a citation to a US Department of Defense website. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Please also check the military history assessment backlog for articles needing assessment.
Category: