Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

Military history WikiProject
Main project page + talk  → Discussion archives Style guide  → Essays Announcements and open tasks talk  → Articles needing attention  → Nominations for deletion talk  → New articles talk Assessment department talk  → A-Class FAQ / B-Class FAQ Contest department talk Logistics department talk  → Copy-editing alert box Outreach department talk  → Stress hotline talk Review department talk  → Improved! Review alert box Special projects department talk Showcase  → Featured picture gallery Portals talk
Project organization Coordinators + talk Members talk  → Active  → Inactive Awards talk Project banner talk Project category Project history
Templates Infoboxes  → Firearm cartridge infobox talk  → Military award infobox talk  → Military conflict infobox talk  → Military memorial infobox talk  → Military person infobox talk  → Military structure infobox talk  → Military test site infobox talk  → Military unit infobox talk  → National military infobox talk  → War faction infobox talk  → Weapon infobox talk  → Command structure box talk  → Operational plan box talk  → Service record box talk Navigation boxes talk  → Campaignboxes talk Template design style talk
Task forces General topics Fortifications talk Intelligence talk Maritime warfare talk Military aviation talk Military biography talk Military historiography talk Military land vehicles talk Military memorials and cemeteries talk Military science talk Military technology and engineering talk National militaries talk War films talk Weaponry talk Nations and regions African military history talk Australian military history talk Balkan military history talk Baltic states military history talk British military history talk Canadian military history talk Chinese military history talk Dutch military history talk French military history talk German military history talk Indian military history talk Italian military history talk Japanese military history talk Korean military history talk Middle Eastern military history talk New Zealand military history talk Nordic military history talk Ottoman military history talk Polish military history talk Romanian military history talk Russian and Soviet military history talk South American military history talk Southeast Asian military history talk Spanish military history talk Taiwanese military history talk United States military history talk Periods and conflicts Classical warfare talk Medieval warfare talk Early Muslim military history talk Crusades talk Early Modern warfare talk American Revolutionary War talk Napoleonic era talk American Civil War talk World War I talk World War II talk
· changes

The review department of the Military history WikiProject is the project's main forum for conducting detailed reviews—both formal and informal—of particular articles and other content within its scope. Requests for B-Class assessment, which any reviewer may assign, can be made here.

The department hosts two forms of review internal to the project:

• Peer review (an informal review meant to provide ideas for further improvement)
• A-Class review (a formal review of a candidate for an A-Class quality assessment)

It also provides a convenient collection of military history content currently undergoing featured content reviews outside the project:

• Featured article candidates
• Featured article review
• Featured list candidates
• Non-article featured content candidates

Contents 1 Peer review 1.1 BTR-90 1.2 SS Mauna Loa 1.3 National War Memorial (South Australia) 1.4 Horses in warfare 1.4.1 Dhatfield 1.4.2 Jim Sweeney 1.5 Aleksei Brusilov 1.5.1 JonCatalán 1.6 Triarii 1.6.1 Dhatfield 1.6.2 JonCatalán 1.7 Murray Maxwell 1.7.1 Kirill Lokshin 1.7.2 Jim Sweeney 1.8 Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II) 1.8.1 Bedford 1.8.2 TomStar81 1.8.3 Roger Davies (1) 1.8.4 jackyd101 1.8.5 Roger Davies (2) 1.9 North Yemen Civil War 1.9.1 Cam 1.9.2 Roger Davies 1.10 Basil W. Duke 1.10.1 Kresock 1.10.2 Guyinblack25 1.10.3 David Fuchs 2 A-Class review 2.1 Stanley Goble 2.2 Third Battle of Kharkov 2.3 Frederick III, German Emperor 2.4 Battle of Jenin 2.5 Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette 2.6 Anglo–Zanzibar War 2.7 1964 Gabon coup d'état 2.8 Battle of Vigo Bay 3 Featured article candidates 3.1 Battle of Lipantitlán 3.2 USS Nevada (BB-36) 3.3 Operation Tractable 3.4 Battle of Berlin 3.5 TAM (tank) 3.6 United States Naval Gunfire Support debate 3.7 Kaunas Fortress 4 Featured article review 4.1 Virtuti Militari 4.2 Battle of the Bulge 4.2.1 Review commentary 4.2.2 FARC commentary 4.3 Kargil War 4.3.1 Review commentary 4.3.2 FARC commentary 5 Featured list candidates 5.1 List of New Zealand Land Wars Victoria Cross recipients 6 Non-article featured content candidates 7 Archives

Peer review

Please add new requests below this line

BTR-90

I recently got this article to B-class, and I'm thinking of improving it further if possible. I haven't done anything higher than B before, so I'd appreciate any comments, suggestions and advice on this. Chamal ^Talk ± 00:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

SS Mauna Loa

This article passed a GA review but I'm not sure how in-depth it's review was. I'd like to get a more formal review before pursuing any further more-formal reviews. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite the strange GAR I think this article could be put up for A-class. I didn't find anything that needed correction. --Brad (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

National War Memorial (South Australia)

I'd like any and all advice on how to further improve this article on the memorial, in the hope of eventually getting it up to A-class or featured status. (I've enjoyed working on it, and would like to try and finish it off properly). - Bilby (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Horses in warfare

This article has recently passed an A class review, since when it has undergone some alterations. We are hoping to put it up for FAC soon and would like any feedback on what else should be done to the article in preparation, with attention to content (any gaps? undue weight?), format and so forth. Thanks, Montanabw, Ealdgyth, Dana boomer and Gwinva (talk) 04:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Dhatfield

Fantastic lead image - I believe the minimum lead image size is 350px. The coverage of cavalry tactics is a bit thin, perhaps a bit more coverage of this topic and a link to that article would help to give horses in warfare a bit of context. Dhatfield (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead image a bit, but 350 px is huge, so I haven't expanded it that much! There is already a templated link to cavalry at the beginning of the cavalry section, as well as several other wikilinks to cavalry (as well as variations, including heavy cavalry and light cavalry) throughout the article. Dana boomer (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney

• Nepal's King's Household Cavalry is a ceremonial unit - as Nepal is now a republic is this still the correct name for the unit?
  • As of June 2008, this is still the correct name. The source we use actually mentions this and says that although Nepal is now a republic, the Cavalry has not had to change it's name yet. Dana boomer (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• I have a problem with the related modern uses section - I can not see where Law enforcement and public safety fits into an article on Horses in Warfare , mounted police and mounted s&r could be articles in their own right.
  • Actually, they do already have their own articles, at Mounted police and Mounted search and rescue. The brief section on Law enforcement and public safety fits into the article because it is a "related modern use" as the main heading states. Mounted police and s&r riders, with many of their tactics and training, have evolved from mounted warfare. Dana boomer (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• Is there any infomation on Mounted Infantry that could be included alongside the Cavalry and Horse Artillery
  • We will look into our article's cross-linking with Dragoon. Montanabw^(talk) 21:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• What makes this web site reliable ? http://www.medieval-castle-siege-weapons.com/history-of-medieval-armor.html
  • Replaced. Dana boomer (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Aleksei Brusilov

I undertook a major rewrite utilising Russian sources, in particular detailing his early career. I was not able to exactly source the quotations used (they each come from one of several sources added to the References), and recognise that, as such, they are probably not appropriate. I've left them in for colour, but they can be deleted if they fall outside WikiStandards. Most of the quotes can be sourced to a Russian online resource, but I'm reluctant to because, along with masses of great info, that site also gave me a nasty virus. Can these be referenced in some other way?

It seems to me that the overall quality of the article is a B-Class now (with the above riders on quotations), and would appreciate comment/assistance on dealing with the aspects that are holding it back.FrankDynan (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

JonCatalán

The major issue which will hold the article back from B-class is the lack of inline citations, which means the article doesn't fulfill requirement B1. The article requires that someone with those sources use them to reference the article. JonCatalán^(Talk) 00:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Triarii

This article recently passed a GA review, but I am unsure of how to improve it further. My hope is to eventually make this A class, and I know it needs expansion and some copyediting to get it there. I'd like ideas for expansion and to be pointed to places where the prose could be improved. Thanks a lot.--Serviam (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Dhatfield

I think that this article would benefit from an image of the equipment of the Triarii. Can you source some images online that could be used as reference material for original work? If so, post a request on my talk page or at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop and I'll try to help out. This will add depth and impact to the article. Dhatfield (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

JonCatalán

Some things could be improved.

1. The lead could be expanded to two or three paragraphs, per WP:LEAD.
2. If there was any way of getting those sources, they could probably lead to an expansion of the article and the creation of something that is suitable for FA.
3. Is there any information on how the removal of the Triarii as a class during the Marian Reforms effected the legions? I.e. in flexibility, tactically, et cetera.

Just some comments. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Murray Maxwell

Hello, I present for your enjoyment an article about one of those doers of derring with which the British Empire seems to have been so crammed full (what we wouldn't give for one now). In his eventful life, Maxwell was a career naval officer who fought in two wars, commanded a sucessful frigate action, was shipwrecked three times, captured by the French twice and once marooned on a desert island. He even conducted his own private war with the Chinese Empire. He eventually died after being made governor of a Canadian island that he never visited from the effects of wounds recieved twelve years earlier when he was beaten up by political opponents in Convent Garden. To find out more please read on and then come back and tell me what needs improving in order to take a shot at FA. All comments welcome and many thanks in advance.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

The article looks very good, overall. A few points that could use some work:

• There is a lack of commas in some sentences (e.g. "being sent to sea at 14 in 1790 on board HMS Juno commanded by Samuel Hood", "Maxwell, the last to leave Alceste arrived at the island on the morning of 19 February", etc.); some thorough copy-editing would probably be helpful, as that sort of thing will certainly be spotted at FAC.

Will give this a good look soon.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• The first time that Amherst is mentioned, you might want to indicate his position at the time.

At the time, Amherst was "unemployed". He had been ambassador to Sicily between 1809-1811 and of course was a member of the House of Lords, but he had no official position at the time he is first mentioned.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• The caption on the Gilbert painting should really be in italics, with the ship names in normal type, as it's the formal title of the work.

Done--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• A translation of Napoleon's comment (probably in the accompanying footnote) would be helpful for non-French-speaking readers.

I can't work out what is meant exactly, it translates as "You are very malicious. Eh well", but unless Maxwell had pulled Napoleon's chair out from behind him I don't think this is an adequate translation.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the great work! Kirill ^(prof) 03:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the comments.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney

• As more people would be aware of the Black Watch then the 42nd Regiment of Foot I would have included it in the text

along the lines of: A British Army office in the 42nd Regiment of Foot the Black Watch or which became better known as the Black Watch.

Will do.

• There is a link to Frigate in the text so I would also have provided one for Sloop-of-war HMS Cyane.

Will do.

• Is Martello Tower the correct term as the article states they are small defensive forts built in several countries of the British Empire and Italy is absent on the lits of locations.

In the origins section of that article, it says: "Martello towers were inspired by a round fortress, part of a larger Genovese defense system, at Mortella Point in Corsica" - Genoa is in Italy and the British towers were based on the original Italian defence system (known in English as Martello Towers). It is unlikely that the Italians knew them by that name, but English naval officers of the period would definately have used the term.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the Voyage to China section link the East Indiaman General Hewitt.

Will do.

• Provide a link for rajah.Fourteen proas appeared later in the day, led by a large vessel which carried a rajah.

Will do.

A good article and character who could have come out of any number of books about the navy of the period. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II)

At the Last B Class Review, this article failed for lack of referenced information. It also failed for lack of suitable referances. I have added at least 2 clear references. As well as followed the Military History Project's Style Guide. I have made sure all the information required by the template is present and properly cited. I think this article deserves a B now. But before submitting it, I'd like to have a Peer Review so if its not suitable for B, at least I'll know what to work on. So Can I please know what it lacks to get a B ?

Yes I am aware that this article has 7 Bibliographical references of which only 3 are being used. I don't have access to the rest.. :(

Thanks. perseus71 (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Bedford

Too many "citations needed" tags for B class. Another English-language-source or two wouldn't be a bad idea.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 00:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

TomStar81

• Expand the introduction, a one liner intro is not really acceptable for any article above Stub-class.
• Is there really a need for Disambiguation here? Could the names of the different units be used instead of the WWI/WWII designation?
• A lot more references and external links are needed for this to be a good B-class candidate. Have asked the aviation people for help? I'm sure they could suggest places to find info on the group. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Roger Davies (1)

• Consider changing the article name. The 1939-45 war is usually referred to hereabouts as either "World War II" or the "Second World War". "World War 2" fits into neither camp.
• Cut down the huge number of blue links. You don't need to link, for example, "hauptmann" every time it's used: just the first time. The same applies to the other rank titles.
• You only need to use the "authorlink" section in {{:tl:cite book}} if the author has a Wikipedia article. It's often neater to dispense with the template altogether, but format and list the same info yourself.

..More later ... --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Headers: these should not be capitalised (ie Unit Emblem and Color Schemes > "Unit emblem and color schemes")
• Is this article in US English or UK English? If US, Defence > "Defense"
• Expand the lead (per the other reviewers)
• Close copy-edit required. Examples: Modern Chernyakhovsk in Poland > "modern Chernyakhovsk in Poland"; of Germany from the final Allied offensives (missing closing bracket);
• De-link dates ie [[[January 1|1 January]].
• This note {Note - Eric Mombeek, in "Defenders of the Reich" actually describes it as being a red circle, in volume 2. But then goes on to show it as a black circle in every plate and photograph.) needs to go into a footnote.

Good luck, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the scope of my comments goes further than the simple question about B-Class you asked (it now easily meets B-Class). Perhaps you should try to work this up to A-Class? If you need a hand, just ask, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

jackyd101

I agree with all of the above, especially regarding the article's title. However my biggest problem was the standard of prose. Firstly, the prose is very broken up into short sentances and paragraphs which makes it difficult to follow the text. This is worsened by the very heavy use of jargon and the failure to explain clearly early on in the article what exactly the subject is and what it did, partly the result of a very poor lead. I recommend that the lead be expanded to explain clearly what the article covers and the article written in a coherent paragraph structure with limited jargon and that which is used explained clearly.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Roger Davies (2)

Outstanding from earlier

In specific response to your requests about A-Class, the following (raised above) seem to be outstanding and need fixing:

• Another English-language-source or two wouldn't be a bad idea. I see you have added titles but not citing much to them.
• Cut down the huge number of blue links. You don't need to link, for example, "hauptmann" every time it's used: just the first time. The same applies to the other rank titles.
• Headers: these should not be capitalised (ie Unit Emblem and Color Schemes > "Unit emblem and color schemes"). A few remain left to do. I've fixed these.
• Citations can just have the author's surname, year of publication and page number.
• Page numbers are needed for most of the books cited.
• Is this article in US English or UK English? If US, Defence > "Defense"
• Close copy-edit required. Examples: Modern Chernyakhovsk in Poland > "modern Chernyakhovsk in Poland"; of Germany from the final Allied offensives (missing closing bracket);
• De-link dates ie [[[January 1|1 January]].
• This note {Note - Eric Mombeek, in "Defenders of the Reich" actually describes it as being a red circle, in volume 2. But then goes on to show it as a black circle in every plate and photograph.) needs to go into a footnote.
• Prose: Very broken up into short sentences and paragraphs which makes it difficult to follow the text.
• Prose: Very heavy use of jargon and the failure to explain clearly early on in the article what exactly the subject is and what it did,
• Poor lead: needs to explain clearly what the article covers.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Refs and sources

• 5. ^ a b Weal (1996)

• Page number?

• 6. ^ Weal & Laurier, 2001.

• Missing from book list. Page number?

• 7. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Schuelke (1995).

• Page number? Chapter? Date of publication? See {{Cite journal}}

• 8. ^ a b Reimer, 2007/08

• Page number?

• 10. ^ a b c d e f Goebel (2001).

• Page number?

• 11. ^ Weal (2003).

• Which book (two for 2003: 2003a or 2003b). Page number?

• 12. ^ a b c d e Mombeek (2003).

• Page number?

• 13. ^ Mombeek, in Defenders of the Reich (Vol. II) describes the emblem as a red circle but photographs depict it as a black circle.

• Page number?

• 15. ^ Williamson & Bujeiro (2004).

• Page number?

• 16. ^ a b c Weal (1999).

• Page number?

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

North Yemen Civil War

I have expanded this article, including references and pictures. Since this is my first serious article, I would like some feedback on how I can improve it. Please keep in mind that this conflict is not exactly World War II - sources are relatively rare and hard to come by. Thanks. -- Nudve (talk) 11:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Cam

Excellent and well-covered article. Just a few suggestions.

• In the infobox, the casualties for the royalists side are listed as "100,000 dead". For the republicans, it's listed as "26,000 killed". I'd stick to one or the other.

• Good point. The 26,000 figure refers only to the Egyptian army. I'll clarify that.

• There's a lot of jargon and weasel-words throughout the article. I'd recommend a good prose copyedit. If you wish, you could put in a request at the logistics department.

• Sure, why not.

• It wouldn't hurt to have someone do a quick checkover of the footnotes & refs. As an example, refs 7 & 12 should be combined, the Schmidt book (which sounds like a good read, I'll try to get my hands on that one) needs an ISBN #, Time Magazine's publisher needs to be listed in the footnotes as well, etc.

• Schmidt's book does not have an ISBN#, probably because it's old. It does have an ASIN#, but I'm not sure what that is.[1] What do you mean by "Time Magazine's publisher?

• Would it be possible to expand upon the long-term political ramifications of the conflict (did it affect Arab League dealings in the future? did it affect the policies of the world superpowers towards those states? what was the response of the western world? How did the rest of the world respond (condemnation/support)?)

• That would be nice, but I don't know if and where I can get sources for that.

Excellent work developing a well-covered article. All the best, Cam (Chat) 04:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Nudve (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Roger Davies

An extraordinarily good and comprehensive read, for which kudos! A few general things:

• Section headings do not usually take an article (ie The royalist offensive > Royalist offensive)
  • Y Done
• The citations have linked dates, these should be de-linked for consistency.
  • Question. How do I do that? Consistency with what? Also, the citations were auto-generated using Zotero.

Consistency with the rest of the article which uses US format dates, unlinked.

To de-link citation dates, you replace the parameter |accessdate = 2008-08-28 with:

• either | accessmonthday = August 28 | accessyear = 2008 for month/day/year
• or | accessdaymonth = 28 August | accessyear = 2008 for day/month/year. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Y Done

• Consider capitalizing "ulema"
  • I did, but most textbooks don't.

Again it's for consistency within the article. The President, the Colonel, the Ulema etc.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Y Done

• Bulleted list: start all entries with a capital letter?
  • Y Done
• All quotes need a source immediately following them.
  • Y Done
• I too think a copy-edit would be a good idea.
  • I agree. Since English is not my native language, I could use some help with that. Following Climie's advice, I've listed it in the logistics department. No results so far.

Good luck! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Next stop, A-Class? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Is it possible for an article to be nominated for A-Class without passing GA first?

Anyway, thanks again for the positive review. Cheers -- Nudve (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure though many editors go to GA because it gives them another layer of review and counts towards a Triple Crown barnstar. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I'll nominate it for GA. If that goes well, I'll move this peer review to A-Class review. -- Nudve (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Basil W. Duke

I am thinking of nominating this for GA, but I thought I'd give MILHIST an opportunity to look thru it for any problems.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 02:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Kresock

Clean up

Did some work to the page, mostly trimming the intro, section naming to be more consisent with other ACW pages, and other format changes. I removed the redundant parts and put some of the details lower. Here are the things I noticed:

Early life

• "Both of his parents died in an early age." What age? Died at the same time or separately?

Y Done--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 00:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Attended the colleges in what years?

Y Done--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 00:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• "...and there were already a multitude of lawyers in Lexington." doesn't sound right to me. Maybe something like "In 1858 he left for St. Louis, Missouri, to practice law with his older cousin (also named Basil Duke) due to an over-abundance of lawyers in Lexington." or such. But I do like the word multitude for some reason.

CW service

• "...after so many pro-Northern politicians were elected in St. Louis, he and four others created Minute Men, a pro-secession organization, with Duke quickly becoming the leader, despite being only 23 years old." entire sentence seems jumbled. What significance was his age? To whom?

• "...indicted for arson and treason." By Whom? Trial?

• "Duke would return to Missouri to help Confederate forces in Missouri, but would eventually return to Kentucky..." too many returns close to each other.

• "By October 1861, he would enlist in his brother-in-law's (Morgan's) command as a private, but would be elected as a Second Lieutenant." I know electing their officers was common in those days, but dates for both ranks would be nice, and "By" should be "In" or "On" if dated.

• "He was twice wounded." I would word this like " During bla bla battle he was wounded in the bla bla on such & such date." for each occurrence and lose that short sentence.

• "Duke was the principal trainer for mounted combat for Morgan's Raiders." Where did they train? Why was Duke chosen to train them?

• "He participated in Morgan's Raid. During this raid his troops would dub him "The Little Whalebone"." Too short, and what inspired the nick? Maybe "On such date Duke participated in Morgan's Raid into bla bla locations" or the like.

• "He was captured at..." Captured alone?

• "..leading troops which gave a chance for others to escape across the Ohio River with Adam "Stovepipe" Johnson, or further into the state of Ohio with Morgan." Should be broken into two sentences, with the second describing how his actions/capture led to the two possibilities.

• "Duke would remain in captivity until August 3, 1864, where he was exchanged." Should be "When he was exchanged" and dated. And this should come after the bit describing the Penitentiary senario.

• "...could have escaped from the Ohio State Penitentiary with Morgan and Thomas Hines, but felt that to do so would hurt the chances of the escapees, as Morgan was easily replaced in his cell by his brother, but no similar replacement was there for Duke." I don't understand this at all. Chances hurt how?

• "...assumed command of Morgan's forces on September 15, 1864, being promoted to brigadier general." Made a BG the same date? I would word it "assumed command of Morgan's forces on date and was promoted to BG on date if they are not the same.

• What was Duke's fate after parting with Davis? Captured elsewhere (and date)? Surrendered and/or paroled (and date)? Fate of his command?

Postbellum

• "Duke would move to Louisville, Kentucky, after the war, and would return to practicing law in 1868..." Should be "After the war Duke moved to Louisville, Kentucky, and in 1868 he would return to practicing law."

• What did he do from 1870 to 1875?

• "Duke died after having surgery in New York City." Died from what? What type of surgery?

Overall

• The citing. I was gonna start combining the cites from the same page(s) of the same source, but then noticed they all are placed together at the end of a paragraph. I'm familiar with in-line citing, but not with in-para citing. Shouldn't they follow the punctuation mark after the words they cite?

I dealt with much that was bothering me before doing this breakdown, and put the rest here. I have a source for most of the relevant ACW dates/assignments and can add them if you wish, after the cites are cleaned up a bit. Just let me know. Kresock (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can add anything, feel free.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 06:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's some facts and dates that could be included

• Duke was related to future Confederate general A. P. Hill (brother-in-law) and to future Union general John Buford (cousin-in-law).

• Ranks: First Lieutenant (CSA) Nov. 1861; Lt. Col. (CSA) Aug. 1862; Col. (CSA) 7 Dec. 1862; Brig. Gen. (CSA) 15 Sept. 1864.

• all of his commands during the ACW, including dates

• exact dates of woundings, exchange date, and parole date & location. (parole wasn't from a prison, but from the U.S. government at the end of the war)

• My source wasn't sure of his birth year, and lists both 1837 and 1837 as possibilities. Anyone come across this before?

• Four of his post-war writings and dates.

After any rewriting/adjusting I would be happy to add all of this where appropriate and cite it (using whatever ref system) and link the relevant military ranks to the American use of them at the time. Kresock (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Guyinblack25

I hope you don't mind an outside review by a video game enthusiast. It looks like Kresock had a lot of good suggestions, I'll try not to repeat the same comments. Here's what stood out to me.

The lead

• This seem awfully short. I would try to expand it to at least two paragraphs. The lead should summarize the whole article, but right now it mainly focuses on his Civil War service. I would add in some content from his early life and postbellum.
• Incorrect verb tense:
  "...Duke would later wroIte a popular account..."

Early life and career

• Trimming redundancy:
  "Both of hHis parents died..."
• Same thing. Also did he attend them concurrently?
  "He attended both Georgetown College and Centre College..."
• I agree with Kresock, the sentence about his move to practice law is too long to decipher.

Civil War service

• MOS:IMAGES suggests that images be staggered. I would do that here by aligning the marker image to the left and moving it down from the top to above the third paragraph in this section.
• I noticed several instances of citations with some spaces between them; for example, "[5] [6] [7]". They should flush against each other; like "[5][6][7]".
• Agree with Kresock again on the "pro-Northern politicians" sentence. It's hard to interpret.
• I would wikilink "companies" to Company (military unit) for the militarily ignorant. "He formed five companies..."
• "Acquire arsenal" and "secure artillery" seem redundant to me, but the difference may not be clear to me or the layman. I would either trim or clarify.
  "He formed five companies, and sought to acquire the federal arsenal in St. Louis for the secessionist movement, securing artillery for secessionist forces."
• I assume "Brig. Gen. William J. Hardee" is "Brigadier General William J. Hardee". I would write this out for the layman.

• • Most editors for the ACW pages use User:Hlj/CWediting standards (also recommended & linked on the MILHIST project page), and here the abbreviation use is correct; but we don't wanna confuse so change it if you think it's best. Kresock (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would use emdashes here instead of commas. The extra information breaks the flow in such a way the reader should know.
  "At Elizabethtown, Kentucky during Morgan's Christmas Raid of 1862,—by this time a full colonel,—he was..."
• I would trim the word "surely", unless it's directly taken from the sources. Even then it doesn't really add much:
  "...his men thought he was surely dead."
• These two sentence could be combined:
  "He participated in Morgan's Raid. D, during whichthis raid his troops would dub..."
• It seems like something is missing from this sentence as the meaning of him leading troops isn't apparent to me. Was he captured leading troops? "...on July 19, 1863, leading troops which gave a chance..."

Postbellum

• There were several sentences in this section that used "would". I would put these sentences in a simple past tense to simplify and trim them. See some examples:
  • "After the war, Duke would moved to Louisville, Kentucky, after the war, and in 1868 would returned to practicing law in 1868..."
  • "He would briefly served in the Kentucky General Assembly from 1869 to 1870, and then he resigned"
  • "Duke would also beserved as the Fifth Judicial District's commonwealth attorney from 1875 to 1880."
• The last paragraph is only two sentences long. I would expand it to balance it out with the others.

Personal

• This section seems too small to stand on its own. I would remove the heading and move the content to the lead.

• • I added this section when I went through the page initially, before writing my summary here. It was in an even worse location then, but didn't want to gas it completely as it was the only part describing the man directly. Kresock (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hope this helps some. It was a good read and looks close to GA quality. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

David Fuchs

It looks like most of my comments were taken by Guy and Kresock, but I'll give it a good review tomorrow (this is so I don't forget.) One point is that usually the notes are put before references when done in a split format (see Chicxulub Crater, for instance.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Due to changes is WP:MOSNUM which befuddle even me, complete dates are generally not to be wikilinked unless of some importance- I'll leave you to figure out what that means, but just make sure date linking is consistent throughout (you have one full date wikilinked and a few paragraphs later have it plain.)
• Generally, you want to leave out precise sizes (300px, et al) for images so that the thumb parameter changes based on local user settings.
• In case it hasn't been stated above, the lead should be expanded to two paragraphs and detail more of his post-Civil war career. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review