Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:52, 18 December 2015

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

15 January 2009 – 30 June 2009 1 July 2009 – 30 June 2010 1 July 2010 – 30 June 2011 1 July 2011 – 30 June 2012 1 July 2012 – 30 June 2013 1 July 2013 – 30 June 2014 1 July 2014 – 30 June 2015

• If you post a message on this page, I'll reply here to avoid fragmenting the discussion. So add it to your watchlist;
• If I leave you a message on your talk page, it will be added to my watchlist. So feel free to reply to it there instead of here;
• Please sign and date your message by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Reg Pollard (general)

Hi Rupert, just following up, really appreciated your comment on the article; did you feel you could do the GAN too? No pressure, just wanted to check before I ask anywhere else... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

April–June 2015 MilHist reviewing award

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		For completing 11 reviews during April–June 2015, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Content Review Medal of Merit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Terminology question

Hey, Sturmvogel 66 suggested that Peacemaker67 and yourself may be to aid in a terminology discussion taking place here. Would you care to take a glance, and offer an opinion?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on sourcing articles about bombing a battleship Op-ed: TomStar81 on the role of nursing in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

450 Sqn

Congrats mate, another successful co-nom... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations to you both! Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Tks for your input along the way, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, gents! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 32nd Battalion (Australia)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 32nd Battalion (Australia) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

CAPT Arthur Thomas Rogers, MC killed in action near Nauroy, France, 29 September 1918 . Anotherclown (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2/1st Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2/1st Machine Gun Battalion (Australia) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Sieges of Taunton/archive1

Thanks for your review of Sieges of Taunton at A-class review. I've now listed the article at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Sieges of Taunton/archive1 as a Featured article candidate. If you had any more critical comments, then your further input would be more than welcome. Harrias 14:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Charles Schroeter (Medal of Honor)

Hello,

When you have a chance, would you be so kind to look at Charles Schroeter (Medal of Honor)?

My primary goal is to get the article to B class. No doubt I have missed some grammar and such.

Thank you! Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jrcrin001: G'day, I had a quick look and started some copy editing, but stopped when I realised I was probably changing too much. There are a few issues that I can see (mainly with tone, over use of headings and economy of writing), but I think it would be best if you get a broader opinion than just my own. As such, I think it might be in your best interests to put the article up for peer review and I will hold off further copy editing until then. Please feel free to revert any of my changes you don't agree with. Cheers, and have a great day! AustralianRupert (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep doing it! Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Malvern Hill FAC

Hello AustralianRupert,

Dropping by to tell you that I've nominated Battle of Malvern Hill for FAC here: Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Battle of Malvern Hill/archive2. You commented at the MILHIST review, I thought you might be interested in dropping a line there. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 20:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 32nd Battalion (Australia)

The article 32nd Battalion (Australia) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:32nd Battalion (Australia) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 11:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2/1st Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)

The article 2/1st Machine Gun Battalion (Australia) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2/1st Machine Gun Battalion (Australia) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Anotherclown (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gordon Bennett (general)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gordon Bennett (general) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gordon Bennett (general)

The article Gordon Bennett (general) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gordon Bennett (general) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Paterson Clarence Hughes

Hi Rupert, this article that you recently reviewed at ACR is now at FAC. I'm heading away at the end of the month so if (and only if!) you did want to comment there, it'd be great if I could action any concerns in the coming week or so. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: G'day, Ian, sure will take a look. I wonder if I could ask a favour in return, though. Would you mind taking a look at my article on the 12th Light Horse that is currently at ACR? I think, it could probably do with a bit of your copy editing magic. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, was planning to try and look over some ACRs before I go -- pls ping me if I haven't stopped by by early next week! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: G'day, Ian, not sure if you have departed yet, but if you haven't would you mind stopping by 12th LHR again and taking another run through? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Tks for ping, will aim to do so at least by tomorrow night... Cheers, 02:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

So sorry mate, last-minute stuff, flew out on 31st and no rainy days since then so only time for this quick note from Prague now... If I'm too late for the 12th I'll definitely owe you one! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries, Ian, hope the trip goes well. Prague sounds nice. I expect it's a bit cooler than Darwin right now... Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Second Schleswig War Interview: Featured picture participants Op-ed: TomStar81 on Indian nationalism during World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Frank Wead

My apologies. I overwrote some of your work while I was trying to fix Wead's flimography,--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries, it happens. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

And thanks for your ongoing help. My eyeballs are getting tired. I couldn't even find a decent obit for Wead, let alone a bio. The one bio -- which I can't find on line -- by Beigan(?) is referred to elsewhere as being inaccurate. I'm beginning to think this page belongs to the drama and literature squad.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries, Jim, I suspect that there must be something comprehensive out there, but it seems elusive at the moment. Thanks for your efforts, too, the article is greatly improved. It would be great if the original contributor could get involved too, as they might have some better sourcing. Anyway, all the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Nicholas Gresham Cooke

Hi AustralianRupert, just wanted to say many thanks for your help with tidying up the article and huge appreciation for voting with those who wanted to keep it when the "fashionable furniture and sea shells expert" nominated it for deletion. I'm currently doing a series on fighter aces who had great achievements but received little publicity - many due to their less publicized theatres of war (or less glamourous aircraft) and also doing articles on the participants in the Great Escape in 1944. I only got active on Misplaced Pages this month and it's a steep learning curve. Thanks mate ! Researcher1944 (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry - second message, I just added a new article and I hope I got the TALK tag right - I copied it. Espelid was a Norwegian flying with the RAF so I wasn't quite sure. Thanks R44Researcher1944 (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

G'day, no worries at all. Thanks for your efforts. I've adjusted the talkpage tag slightly and assessed the article. It probably only needs a few more references (at least one at the end of each paragraph), for it to be rated B class. When/or if you would like to have the article reassessed, you can request this, by listing it at WP:MHA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks AustralianRupert, I've just added some more to Espelid and will try to track down the 2 other sources requested. I don't know how to source the Spitfire Op Training Unit one though, he couldn't have joined a Spit squadron without coming through a Spit OTU. I'll have a dig around the Spitfire website and see what I can find. Many thanks R44Researcher1944 (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

57th/60th Battalion Unit Colour Patch

I have pinched this patch from Commons and rotated to use as the 5th Battalion. Just FYI Unit Colour Patch edits. Enderwigginau (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

G'day, no worries, I think this already existed, though (created by someone else): File:5thAIF Patch.svg. Thanks for your efforts on the Unit Colour Patch page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

12th Light Horse

I see some parallel here with the issue of units that has concerned me wrt Buna-Gona. In the Sinai section 9.3 mi (15 km). Without physically checking the reference, this comes from a contemporary Australian reference, quoting distances in metric that would have been sourced in imperial. I would be surprised if the original source for this reference did not say: "Dueidar, about 9 mi away" - which has been converted, with an appropriate precision, to 15 km. It is hardly appropriate to say about 9.3 mi. This is very specific.

Significant figures is a detailed discussion but here is a simple explanation (I hope). Consider the casualty radius of a grenade at 30 yds. This might convert to 27 m. I would say that with an appropriate precision, this should be 30 m. Does the extra 3 m mean you are going to be safe? Consider a metric and an imperial soldier reporting a target indication. If they were equally good at judging distance, the same target would be at 200 m and 200 yds. It would be the same for map distances - 900 m or 1000 yds (not 980 yds). BTW, not meaning to tell you how to suck eggs!

Another example in the Palestine section is just this - across a 980 yd (900 m). There are many more examples in the 12 LH article (almost every conversion). Do hope this helps. In Buna-Gona, conversions were done manually with appropriate precision but then (with good intentions), the convert template was added without considering the precision. I have been putting of backtracking these changes. Anyhow, Regards. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

G'day, ack, yes, starting to see where you are coming from. I've gone through and checked the examples in 12th LHR, and adjusted where it seemed appropriate. The "sigfig=1" parameter with the "order=flip" parameter (where relevant) seems to do the trick, I think, of maintaining consistency of Imperial or Metric being presented first and then maintaining the level of precision used in the source. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Was looking at the article and was going to make some edits along these lines. In the Jordan and Syria section, I came upon the following: "the railway station about 0.9 mi (1.5 km) away." Perry would have given the distance as 1.5 km where his original sources would have given this as 1 mi. I am pretty certain Perry has rounded this to the nearest half km (ie a precision of ± 250 m). I cannot see a way to reconcile this except manually? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

In the Palestine section "300–500 yd (270–460 m)" should read "300–500 yd (300–500 m)" or perhaps "300–500 yd (300–450 m)". Don't know how this could be done except manually? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

G'day, regarding the first example (0.9 mi (1.5 km)): yes, I agree it should probably be 1 mi; but equally I can't work out how to make the template do that. Regarding the second example (300-500 yd), on this one I'm not so sure. The source (Gullett) gives provides 300-500 yd, hence to remain faithful to his level of precision, we should convert with the same precision. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

At the same precision, based on significant figures, it would be "300–500 yd (300–500 m)" though given 500 yds is more accurately 460 m, it might be better to report this to the nearest 50 yds (50 m) and keeping in mind that the distance (spacing) reported is 400 yds ± 100 yds and these were likely from visual estimates since the variation does not suggest anything more accurate such as pacing. It also occurs to me that the 9 mi (15 km) example earlier is probably the same as the 0.9 mi (1.5 km) just now mentioned as I think they both come from the same author(?) - our fellow has likely reported the original source's 10 mi as 15 km. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the source of the 15 km, that was Hollis, while the 1.5 km figure was Perry, so I think we need to be careful inferring things here. Regardless, I think we need to be very careful not to go too far here lest we get into original research territory (and adding an extra mile on a hunch is probably going a bit far, IMO). Equally, converting 300-500 yds to 300-500 m is also problematic, IMO, as it implies that 1 yd = 1 m, which it doesn't. The point of the conversion here is for the reader who doesn't understand what a yard is. Telling them that it is the same as a metre defeats the purpose of the conversion in the first place, which is to explain that it is roughly the same distance, but not quite. I think the "sigfig=1" parameter should probably really only be used where it is clear that figure is approximate (e.g. the source says "about" or something similar), otherwise I think mainly we should probably just faithfully convert it. In this case, Gullett is specific, so I've chosen to be, too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thought they were the same. Should have checked but didn't - my mistake. It was a bit of a side thought as I was putting down the other - hence my question mark. Writing "300–500 yd (300–500 m)" is not problematic. It is not saying that yards and meters are the same. What it is saying is that, to the level of precision of the reported figures, the conversions happen to have the same values. At this precision and for these values, they are essentially the same. It is like the example of the metric and the imperial soldiers or the grenade casualty radius example. Telling a reader that 300 yds is (at this degree of precision) essentially the same as (not substantially different from) 300 m is not defeating the purpose - nor is saying "-40°C (-40°F)"- a coincidence at this level of precision but not and exact coincidence since the conversion involves Repeating decimals. Reporting "300 - 500 yds (270 - 460 m)" implies the converted figures have a precision to the nearest 10 m and infers the measurements in yards have a similar precision (to the nearest 10 yds) and IMO this is misleading. To say, "otherwise I think mainly we should probably just faithfully convert it", implies (to me) that we should be using the 'exact' conversion (or that somehow the conversion templat is perfect) but the conversion template does not report the 'exact' conversion. An exact conversion would be: 300 yd (274.32 m). The template makes certain assumptions about the precision (sig figures) of the value being converted and assumptions of the appropriate number of sig figures to be reported in the conversion. These assumptions are not always going to be right. The range 300 - 500 yds has only 1 sf figure in the value. There is nothing to suggest that any of the following zeros are significant and in the context, they are likely not. the correct application of significant figures is to report only 1 sig figure in the conversions unless there is reasonable reason to assume a greater precision - {{convert|300|-|500|yd|m|abbr=on|sigfig=1}} gives 300–500 yd (300–500 m). Another limitation is that it rounds on a decadic basis (power of 10) and does not accommodate rounding on a half-decadic basis - allowing 500 yds to be reported as 450 m. Perhaps, where the limitations of the template do not produce an appropriate outcome, a conversion should be applied manually. IMO, the purpose of a conversion is not to highlight the differences between systems of measurement. Its purpose is to allow the reader to conceptualize (appropriately visualise) the quantity given when they are not familiar with th units of the primary value. To this extent "300–500 yd (300–500 m)" is more appropriate than "300 - 500 yds (270 - 460 m)", since it is implied the reader must conceptualize the meaning of the more precise figures in the conversion. While not as 'neat', using the quoted figure as the primary figure allows the reader to make their own inferences about the precision of the converted value. You made an analogous comment about the virtues of consistency at Talk:Battle of Buna–Gona - though in WP, on this issue, I fear it is a lost cause and consistency will likely outweigh any other merits no matter how valid. I mean this as a considered argument but not argumentative. I certainly value your opinion and feedback. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I appreciate you sharing your opinion; I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Found these links: Unit conversions and False precision Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

James Catanach

Hi Australian Rupert, I have supplied the sources which you requested on James Catanach. cheers R44Researcher1944 (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, great work on this and your other articles, too. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

23 Squadron

Hi, 23 Squadron opperated the F-111C "Pig" for a number of years. My father was the executive officer for a number of years. So please leave my changes. Regards, MilitaryHistoryGuru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Militaryhistoryguru (talk • contribs) 04:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

G'day, Misplaced Pages requires content to be verified (the relevant policy is WP:V). That means referenced in reliable sources. Personal opinion, or experience, does not fall in to this category. With all due respect to your father, unless you can find a book, magazine, journal, or a reliable website that states this, then the information should not be included in the article. Beyond this, I'm fairly sure that No. 23 Squadron hasn't had a flying role since the 1960s, so it doesn't seem likely that they flew F-111s. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm feeling better now

Thanks for asking. Damn acid reflux, but I think it's healed up for now. - Dank (push to talk) 12:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Good to hear, Dan. Take care. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Arras

Thanks, it was just a quick drive-by.Keith-264 (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Burke's Rangers

Thanks for the excellent review. It will take a little time to go through but I'll begin making the changes this weekend. Thanks again! Capitalismojo (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors, coordinator elections have begun Articles: Abbasids to a Yugoslav monitor Book reviews: Economics of warfare, Japan, and light horse Op-ed: We can (not) advance Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed  05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

American Civil War peer review

Hello again, thank you for the courtesy of a peer review at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/American Civil War/archive4. I've worked with you before at Bombardment of Cherbourg and Siege of Fort Pulaski on the articles I took from stubs, but I've not cracked the code for successful article advancement. I would like to advance a wider narrative in military-related articles to include naval and joint services operations there, and also in my contributions to the American Civil War article, which you have been kind enough to peer review, and which I would like to address.

The principle objection to the ACW article causing a delisting revolved not around citation conventions, but the treatment of slavery as a cause of the conflict. In editing down the related passages by consensus on the Talk page, several references were made extraneous. There now appears in the article code, "The following references appeared in the reflist but were not used in the prior text. Please return them to the reflist once they have been correctly cited in the main article." To the best of my knowledge, there is no reason to reimpose those references, nor to re-extend the narrative on Causes.

You kindly referenced two links which I am not sure how to use: "harv errors", and "duplicate link checker tool", both of which promise to be very useful in pinpointing links which should be made current. Do I simply copy-paste the code at the top of the article, then save? Are errors then highlighted in red for me to address by finding working links or deleting the references as links?

The actual expert contributor to this article is Rjensen, a published university professor. Another peer reviewer wondered about the inclusiveness of the historiography section. I would defer to Rjensen for an answer. Although much of the disruption to the article is in the form of anachronistic Lost Cause and modern neo-Confederate interpretation which are not born out in reliable sources...

Another editor noted instances of US instead of U.S., and those six stylistic errors are corrected. I likewise clicked on edit and searched for &ndash and &mdash and found no examples, so I can scan the article for hyphens in the narrative and replace those I find... Oh, btw, in this process, at the very least, is the American Civil War article a B-class article rather than a C-class? A-class does not seem to have the MOS requirements of either GA or FA...is that an easier status for an article to achieve? Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: G'day, hope you are well. Regarding the scripts, they are actually installed on your "monobook.js" page. You can see mine for an example: User:AustralianRupert/monobook.js. If you don't have one, I believe you will need to create one to get them to work. The harvn errors then show in red when you view the article, while you have to click on a link on the left hand Tools toolbar when viewing the article. The link to look for is "Highlight duplicate links". These will only work once you have the scripts saved on your monobook. Regarding the article's assessment, I think it is still C class, unfortunately. While you've done a fantastic job and I don't want to discourage you, there are still a lot of paragraphs that appear to be uncited. I've marked a few just now with "citation needed" tags, but I didn't get them all. Regarding A-class Review, it sits between GA and FA, and its MOS standards are pretty close to FA. I'd suggest taking the American Civil War article to GA first, then ACR. Anyway, I'm not feeling well today, so I will end it there and get some rest. I hope some of what I've said is helpful. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I hope this post finds you feeling better. I added importScript for HarvErrors on my /vector.js page and it produced a “Expand citations” tool. punching that up for ACW produced a large number of errors as advertised, but on adding 15 “|ref=harv" items of coding which I found omitted, and also removing nine citations without references in the narrative, there is hardly a dent in the sea of red. alas and alack. More seek and find is required to figure out how seemingly good footnotes and their book cites do not link. I've spot checked a couple of the internet links, and they seem good, for instance footnote 4 to Chalmers on one statistic for the war dead. --- Ha! when the citation uses two names for authors Smith and Jones, the sfn must read SmithJones. also, years must align between fn and book cite.

Another peer reviewer noted inconsistent casualty figures reported, I know it has been the topic of some discussion on the Talk page. Is there a convention for reporting ranges, noting differences in killed and wounded, inclusion of civilians, etc.? Different authorities give different figures.

I take your direction for more thorough citation at the end of each paragraph as a constructive idea. It will take some re-reading of sources to try to reconstruct what pages the information was taken from, whether I edited the passages or others did. rats. I am now consistent in documenting every contribution, I wonder how I may have missed it earlier, since I often had the sources either open in my lap or on an open window on my computer. I sometimes wonder if citations are lost in collaborative editing. I guess practice makes improvement. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

G'day, for casualties, I'd suggest putting the lowest and highest ranges in the infobox, and discussing these in more detail in the body of the article discussing the various estimates (with citations and attribution). Regarding the harv errors, I've tried to fix a few for you. Regarding the citations, I note Richard Jensen's reversion here: . Claiming that the information is well known and therefore doesn't need a citation is not a correct interpretation of Misplaced Pages policy, nor is it setting the article up for success if you want to take the article to GA or higher. The author might know where the information came from, but the casual reader probably won't, so how do they verify it? They do so with a citation. The correct policy is WP:PROVEIT and the wider WP:V policy. Additionally, the Milhist B-class criteria (see the frequently asked questions here) requires a minimum of a paragraph end citation, so without that, this article will never be anything higher than C-class, IMO. As it appears that not all of the article's editors are happy with my involvement or advice, I will be stepping back from this one and won't be working on this article or reviewing it for the foreseeable future. Good luck with taking the article further and thank you for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait, Rjensen relented at . He is a curmudgeonly former lecturer at West Point who generally takes care of questions of scholarship and historiography on the ACW page. I hope you can overlook his initial response. But in any case, thanks for the assist. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!

In recognition of your successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History Project for the next year, I hereby present you with these co-ord stars. I wish you luck in the coming year. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

A-class -> PR_PR-2015-09-30T13:10:00.000Z">

A question, also for User:Anotherclown: do you think it would be possible to reproduce at PR what we've been doing at A-class? I have a lot of thoughts about this, but the main one is the obvious one: I've been happy to help maintain A-class for years, on the theory that sooner or later new regular reviewers would come along. It hasn't happened, and judging from the lack of response to the current thread at WT:MHC, there's no one around who is interested in stepping in to review every article for a month, much less for a year. PR has some disadvantages, but I believe there may be ways to deal with the disadvantages that we haven't tried yet, and it has three big advantages: it works with partial reviews, it works with less than three reviewers, and (historically) it has drawn in new reviewers from time to time, sometimes from other wikiprojects, who wind up hanging around, unlike A-class. There's arguably a fourth advantage: the lack of any sort of promotion at the end of the process may provide a greater incentive for nominators to move on to GAN or FAC. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 13:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)_PR"> _PR">

Gday. As a community-wide (rather than project specific process) I think PR can be useful in getting some outside attention on an article and if some mechanism could be devised to encourage its use it might lessen the burden at ACR. On a personal note I sometimes use it for articles which cover a broad topic prior to GA IOT try and reduce gross errors and ensure I haven't missed anything. That said I just can't see an obvious way to divert articles down this path (short of say an OP ed in the Bugle or some other way of communicating directly with editors to suggest it). We would then also have to try and get more reviewers involved at PR to take up that slack. Re your offer, potentially you might need to try and recruit someone from outside the coord ranks as I think your assessment is right about the lack of response there. For me it just doesn't seem achievable to give an undertaking to review every article (and I honestly don't know how you manage that rate of effort). Sorry all that sounds fairly negative I know. Anotherclown (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You're very kind, and probably right. Well, I'm going to stop reviewing and other chores at A-class, and see what happens ... maybe new people will start reviewing, we'll see. - Dank (push to talk) 12:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

G'day, gents, I think Peer Review has many advantages over A-class, most certainly, particularly the lack of a "penalty for failure"; that said, overall I can see a decline in the level of involvement in all review processes, which leads me to believe that in the long term neither may be sustainable in the long term. One thing I've toyed with in my head for a while, is potentially adding either PR or GAN as a pre-requisite for an ACR nomination. This might serve to help link the processes more, and also potentially help to get an outside view on our articles prior to ACR. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

No thoughts; I'll support whatever you think will work. - Dank (push to talk) 13:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The pre-req idea is a fairly simple way of ensuring A class candidate articles have had some sort of quality control before getting to us and seems to me to probably be the mechanism I was groping in the dark for above. I don't hate it, but I wonder how much support it would have with other project members? I imagine a change like this would probably need to RFC or something like that? Although I guess the first step would be floating it among the other co-ords though. Some counters are that we are not currently overwhelmed by ACRs (although the numbers do fluctuate), whilst this would likely just increase the reviewing burden at PR and GAN so there may be some push-back from people involved there and we might just find ourselves having to increase our own reviewing effort there instead... Anotherclown (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

G'day, I think the idea has been muted in a slightly different form before, i.e. a proposal to reduce the number of supports required at ACR for articles that had already successfully undergone a GAN. My proposal is a little different, but could potentially incorporate that also. For instance, make either a PR or GAN (either successful or unsuccessful) a pre-req to nominating...and for those articles that have been successful at GAN, require only two full supports. It would serve to (potentially) speed up the ACR process, which is currently taking up to two to three months now, when I remember a time when it was possible to promote an A-class article in five days. Anyway, I will have to think about it a bit and then maybe raise it on the co-ord page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Nicholas Gresham Cooke

Hi AustralianRupert, thanks for your help on formatting the photo. Please can you do the same on Philip Hunter (RAF officer), thanks, R44Researcher1944 (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've re-formatted this now as AR doesn't seem to be active at the moment, hopefully this helped. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks guys, I appreciate the help. R44Researcher1944 (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ac. Yeah, sorry I fell asleep pretty early last night. Have been destroyed by work this past month. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you please revisit your prior comments from A-class review

Could you please revisit your prior comments from A-class review at Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States?

I think the article Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States still has some major issues = it reads more like a manual or guide and not encyclopedic, doesn't read like a descriptive encyclopedic article.

And I think the issues you already mentioned at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States of:

1. WP:NOTGUIDE
2. WP:EDITORIALIZING

I think these above issues are still the most obvious glaring areas where there could be significant improvements made.

Maybe you could leave some more specific comments about that, at Talk:Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States/GA1 ?

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Would be appreciated if you could look into above, or get someone else from WP:MILHIST to assess your prior analysis and the current state of the article with regards to WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:EDITORIALIZING, please? — Cirt (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt:: G'day, in hindsight my review of this article wasn't a good idea on my part. I am a PTSD sufferer and to be honest, reviewing this one was harder than I expected. Please accept my apologies, but I think I will have to sit this one out. I wish the editors who are working on this all the best and thank you for taking an interest. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, I know a little bit about what that's like. I wish you the best, — Cirt (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2/33rd Battalion (Australia)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2/33rd Battalion (Australia) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

July to September 2015 Reviewing Award

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons for an awesome 43 FA, A-Class, Peer and GA reviews during the period July to September 2015. Well done! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Peacemaker! Looks like Ac beat me to awarding yours! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for 4th Bombay Grenadiers

An article that you have been involved in editing—4th Bombay Grenadiers —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Hamish59 (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Anotherclown and Sturmvogel 66 on war in the air and at sea Review essay: Auntieruth55 on the French Revolutionary Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the entry of Bulgaria in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

General Johnson

• Here is a semihemidemibarnstar for Your edits to Gerald W. Johnson

  (Multiple edits, so I can't just thank.) Lineagegeek (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Cheers, Lineagegeek. Hope you are having a great weekend. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Coast Guard Squadron One

I've always thought an extra set of eyes on the problem were just what was needed. Thanks for your help in spotting things that I have gone over at least a dozen times. And I thought it was ready for prime time...silly me! Cheers, mate... Cuprum17 (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

For your comment on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests page

		The Civility Barnstar
		For your comment made on the Assessment Request page at 09:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC). Thank you. You provide true leadership for the Project, and it shows. Cuprum17 (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

thanks Rupert

Thanks for doing those Rupert. Adamdaley (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Quitting...

AustralianRupert,

With what has been going on since yesterday (27th October, 2015) with PeaceMaker67 (and others) and today (28th October, 2015) on my talkpage. I have decided to finish the current article I am working on and then quitting Misplaced Pages. I'll then focus my all my time on my website that I registered earlier this year. Adamdaley (talk) 07:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I've appreciate what you've done for me throughout the time we've known each other on Misplaced Pages. Hope things work out better than what things have worked out for me on here. All the best for the future, online and offline. Adamdaley (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

G'day, Adam, the decision to quit Misplaced Pages is one that we all need to make one day. I have mulled over it for many years, in fact, and will one day do so, too. The truth is that there are aspects of Misplaced Pages that are great and others that can be quite stressful. I have been living with PTSD for many years and to be honest there have been moments online that have gotten to me (perhaps more than I should have let them). Anyway, I wish you all the best for the future and thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Chief of Staff of the French Air Force Article

Should this article be in the biography section? Chief of Staff of the French Air Force. Adamdaley (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

G'day, Adam, just looking at some similar articles (such as Chief of Staff of the United States Army, Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force and Chief of Naval Staff (Pakistan)) I'd say possibly not. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Divisional Cavalry Regiment

There are several images that would be suitable for the article available from the Alexander Turnbull Library in NZ, but they need permissions. Would those qualify for fair use?--Kges1901 (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kges1901: G'day, I believe that if the photos/images were taken in 1944 or before, then under NZ law they would be in the public domain. You could upload them to Wikimedia Commons under the Template:PD-New Zealand licence. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Nikolay Voronov

What improvements should I make to raise the article for a GA nomination? Kges1901 (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Kges1901: G'day, I'd suggest the following (not an exhaustive list, but might help):
  • expand the lead a little more;
  • translate the foreign language titles for the sources (some appear to be have been done, but not all, e.g refs 2 and 3);
  • include page numbers for the citations for the books used;
  • the dates of rank section could possibly include all officer ranks attained;
  • potentially offset one of the images to reduce the amount of whitespace in the article;
  • add a fair use rationale to the description page of "File:Dyatlenko.jpg" explaining why it is acceptable to use it in the Voronov article;
  • add US licences and English descriptions to the image description pages (on Commons) of "File:Nikishоv Voronov Zhukov.jpg", "File:NNVoronov1932.jpg" and "File:NNVoronov1940.jpg" (already has an English description, but still needs a US licence in addition to the Russian one);
  • check for capitalization inconsistencies, for instance "promoted to Marshal of the Artillery" v. "promoted to chief marshal of the artillery";
  • make sure your date formats are consistent (for instance the date of rank section seems to use a different system to the majority of the article);
  • list the article at peer review for another set of eyes to take a look and then when the peer review is done, list it at WP:GAN;
  • Anyway, I hope this helps. Keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

New Guinea Force

Hi AustralianRupert, having a look at the New Guinea Force page atm, so it'll be ugly for a little while as I load it up with info. If you get a chance to have a quick look now and then it would be appreciated. Feel free to just leave pointers and I'll do my best to adjust rather than just making changes yourself - I'll never learn otherwise hehehe Enderwigginau (talk) 11:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Enderwigginau: G'day, no worries, I've watchlisted the article and will take a look. Thanks for your efforts! Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Australian Army brigades, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saijo, Hiroshima (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Military history A-Class medal
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject, I am pleased to award you the A-Class Medal for your great work on 2/1st Machine Gun Battalion (Australia), 12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia), and 2/3rd Battalion (Australia). Well done! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, PM. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

what to do with it ?

Hi AR,

I've written this article RAF Bomber Command Aircrew of World War II over the last few weeks to the best of my current ability, I don't know if its ready for peer review or whatever - I'm a newbie and still don't understand the various classes of articles or review system, I'd appreciate any guidance, thoughts or advice on what needs doing with it, I'm not even sure about the title which is configured based on the fact that the aircrew flew for RAF Bomber Command to match with an article of that title in Misplaced Pages - but I feel it should better reflect the diversity of the origins of the chaps themselves ???? thanks R44Researcher1944 (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Researcher1944:: G'day, overall, I think you've created a really good article. There are still several areas that need citations, though, so it couldn't really be assessed as anything higher than C class, although if you added these in it would probably be B-class in my opinion. I would definitely suggest putting the article up for peer review, and then depending upon how that goes, maybe WP:GAN. In relation to the title, I have also been wondering about that. I'm not really sure, but I think it might work better as Aircrew of RAF Bomber Command during World War II or something similar. I wouldn't make any changes straight away, though, probably a question to ask at peer review so you can see what other people think also, and then make an informed decision. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks AR, I will get onto the remaining citations/source refs. Your advice is appreciated. R44Researcher1944 (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of the Bulge Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the collapse of the Serbian Army in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Rudolf Abel Article

AustralianRupert,

Would like your input to the ongoing talks about what should be in and what should not be in the article of Rudolf Abel article. As Trekphiler has already taken out roughly 4,000 to 5,000 bytes of the article which he finds questionable that should be in other articles. Of course you can see on my page here User:Adamdaley/Draft of Article 2 I am doing Reino Häyhänen, Rudolf Abel's assistant which should have been done a while ago, but is still being done. I'll reply to Trekphiler in the next few hours on the article talkpage of Rudolf Abel. Would you be kind enough to have your input on the talkpage? Adamdaley (talk) 06:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

AustralianRupert – Would you be able to request that the Rudolf Abel page be page protected due to vandalism and reverted? I tried last month to get the paged protected but failed. I would be appreciated if it could be done. Adamdaley (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

G'day Adam, looking at the page history I'm not seeing a lot of vandalism per se. I see quite a few edits that are not necessarily optimal (and probably need to be refactored in some regard), but beyond that I think it would be difficult to make an argument that the page should be protected. I'm not an admin, though, so let's ask a couple: @Nick-D, The ed17, and TomStar81: thoughts, gentlemen? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that there's a reason to protect the article: this is a content dispute which is being politely discussed on the article's talk page, and hasn't involved any edit warring, etc. Nick-D (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a justifiable reason to invoke page protection...yet. It is true that this is a content dispute, but there are two veteran editors working on the content dispute, and more importantly working on it civilly. I'd take a wait and see approach for now, particularly since invoking page protection here would require the page be shut off from everyone but administrators to edit. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Can't add much to the above. Ed  07:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: Your inquiry about the A class review on Coast Guard Squadron One

I'm kind of bummed out if the truth be known. First of all, I want to make it very clear to you that I appreciate all the help you have given me in the past. I can think of very few individuals on Misplaced Pages that have given me more encouragement than yourself. You are a class-act. I told myself when I removed the content from the A class review that I was done with Misplaced Pages and especially the Military History Project... However, you reached out and more or less jerked me out of my funk. I really enjoy the editing that I do on articles relating to military history, but I don't enjoy the frustrations of the review process. I was told when the subject article finished its GA review (by Zawed, if memory serves) that it was ready for ACR. Apparently it wasn't; dozens of changes had to be made by you, others, and myself to shape the article up to the expected criteria. I guess I was kind of disappointed that it wasn't a better effort. I appreciate your edits and suggestions to make it a better article and the same thing goes for Anotherclown. He was the other A class reviewer. I understand each and every reason I was asked to make a change...and agree that for the most part the changes made helped make it a better, more encyclopedic article. I am disappointed by the image reviewer, I attempted to answer the concerns made, but didn't receive any response, even after a ping. Finally, the lack of a third review is kind of a slap in the face. The article sat untouched for two weeks by anyone except for one individual who wanted someone else to offer up an opinion before they would. That is real encouraging for someone who is submitting their first ACR. If the Project is to survive, the members of that project must encourage each other and mentor the beginner. I have been on Misplaced Pages for over eight years and thought I was comfortable with most aspects of the Military History Project outside of the ACR. With the ACR, I am a total noob, and I guess I figured that if I needed help with the image problem that someone would step up and point me in the right direction. It was also my understanding that the whole process of the ACR was to be completed before 28 days or the ACR was a fail.

I don't know what to do. I put a lot of effort in the article over the course of two years and I really wanted it to be an A class article. I know that some can develop an article through A class in less than a month or so, but I only have so much time to devote to Misplaced Pages. What do you advise? If you think that someone will eventually come forth with another review, I suppose I would like to see the process through. I don't know if I will ever take another article much farther than B class in the future, but I would like to see this one article as an A class article not for myself, but for the 3,000 Coast Guardsmen that served in the unit in Vietnam; it is probably the closest to a unit history that will ever be written that the general public would ever see.

I need some guidance, mate. What say you? Thank you for your past support and friendship. Cheers Cuprum17 (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cuprum17: G'day, mate, thanks for the kind words. ACR timings are...flexible these days due to lack of reviewers (and I think also a shift in our thought processes about the need for a cut off date). I had one recently that took about six days, and one that took six weeks. This one: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2/3rd Battalion (Australia) - well, I thought it was good to go after GA, but turns out it needed considerable work. But in the end it got there due to many people pitching in. That was a really important article to me (my grandfather served in that unit during World War II) so I was really glad to see it promoted. I'd love to see your article be promoted. I think it would be a fantastic addition to our showcase. I'm hopeful that if you left it up a while longer that a third reviewer will come around. A couple of our co-ords might be able to offer some tips on the review page, too.@Nick-D, Ian Rose, and Peacemaker67:: Gents, are any of you able to offer Cuprum a review on his article (which is his first attempt at A-class)?. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2/2nd Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2/2nd Machine Gun Battalion (Australia) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Iwane Matsui

Iwane Matsui, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)