User talk:Jackyd101/Archive 5

Napoleonic wars in the Indian Ocean
Hello. As I am from Réunion, I am very interested in your work about the raid on Saint-Paul, the battle of Grand Port and so on. It might be possible to add some data produced from a French perspective. Yet, I am not fluent enough in English to do so. That is why I think the better would be for me to translate your articles, add my stuff and then let an English speaker translate backwards. What do you think? For the moment, I have only two remarks. The first is that Saint Paul should probably be written Saint-Paul, as it is nowadays in French. The second is that there was an event that preceded the raid on Saint-Paul and was perhaps as important from the French point of view. That was the raid on Sainte-Rose by Corbet/Corbett. As it was the first real attack that took place on land, it was psychologically the beginning of the real action there. Taylor does not give a lot of details about this. Yet, an article can probably be created, and the event mentioned in the one about Saint-Paul. Thierry Caro (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all. I'll try to help when you have finished. Let a message somewhere on my French page. Thierry Caro (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We'll try that. Look there for some famous local participants. Thierry Caro (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi again! I have just looked at my books, and have found that there is enough data to make an article about the raid on Sainte-Rose thanks to the French historian Roger Lepelley and an article from the Journal de l'île de La Réunion. Thus, I have started a stub here. I'll try to bring it too good article standards during the next two weeks. Maybe will you be interested in having it translated after that. For the moment, please check for me your English books. I'd like to get anything that might have been said about the raid in their pages, in order to be as exhaustive as possible and have more sources than just a couple of books. If you have some data, put it in English on the French discussion page! Thierry Caro (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Thanks for the heads up about the good articles. There really is no other place to go to find detailed info on Song Dynasty military events than History of the Song Dynasty and Jingkang Incident. I don't plan on creating new articles on the subject anytime soon, because I am already engaged in another subject, the Han Dynasty. Recently, I created History of the Han Dynasty, and plan on creating three more branch articles for Han (society and culture, government, and science and technology). As for reorienting yourself, look to Timeline of Chinese history. That may help. Cheers.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 02:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

John Capper
Hi, I am reviewing your article John Capper for GA and have left a few comments at Talk:John Capper/GA1. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 19:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Bill Johnston (cricketer)
Fixed em.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks,  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 04:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

French frigates
Hello,

I have at last managed to draft articles about Clorinde, Psyché, Piémontaise, Niémen and Chiffone. The officers are still in the pipeline.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

WT:F1 GA Sweeps
Hi. I noticed you recently did several GA Reassesements on articles relating to Formula One. While I have no problem with you doing it, it is a tough ask for the project to try and get five articles back up to GA status within a week. The project has a relevatively small size of active editors, therefore it will be hard to get them back up to GA within that period. I think that an extension should be given to allow us more time to improve the article back to GA - one week is quite short for five articles to work on. Please see and reply to the conversation here. Kind regards, D.M.N. (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Mario Andretti
Hi

Sorry to bother you about this, but i Have been looking at the Mario Andretti page to try and clean it up. One of the things you mentioned is "Some of the online references are improperly formatted". I was wondering if you could give me an example of one that is right and one that is wrong, eg corret[1] incorrect[2], as I can see several different formats that have been used and I would rather make sure we get this right before you take another look at it!

I personally, use this format in most of my pages, but wondered if this was the formatting you are expecting ref name="refname"> {cite web | url=http://xxx.xxx.com | title= words go here | date=yyyy-mm-dd | publisher= http://xxx.xxx.com } </ref

Many thanks--Chaosdruid (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought it best to make sure = better safe than sorry lol - thanks for your time--Chaosdruid (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've looked over the improvements to the ref formatting on Mario Andretti and wanted to see if this part of the GAR can be changed to good/passing standard. Please let WP:F1 know. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Jacky - I have tried to tidy up the media section and wondered if you have time to check and see if it meets your approval
 * Thanks--Chaosdruid (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

RE:Septimus Heap
Thanks for your help. Really appreciated. I'll format the links wherever possible.&quot;Legolas&quot; (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton GAR
Hi Jacky

Just to let you know I have reworked most of the article - any chance you could take a look and advise as to any more work needed

thanks --Chaosdruid (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Carl Lewis
Jack: I was completely unaware of the assessment for the Lewis page. I wrote a lot of this page, though it has been substantially altered and is a mess. I also stuck in a lot of references at a time when I really had no idea how to do that... I think I can address a lot of concerns - and the assessment is a good excuse to wipe away a lot of the crap - so if I could ask you to indulge me here with a week or so for the re-assessment, I will attempt to address most of the concerns. At the very least, the article will be improved if not up to GA snuff. Cheers. Canada Jack (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Got your response, thanks, I'll be in touch when the article in question is in better shape. Cheers. Canada Jack (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Action of 13 January 1797
Hi. I've been watching this article ever since I've helped review it. It's been massively edited today since it's on the main page, and many of the edits seem dubious, if not plain vandalism. Are you watching it? -- Nudve (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I didn't do anything because I am clueless about this incident, so I couldn't really tell constructive edits from unconstructive ones, but it was clear that the bottom line is not positive. IMHO, I think it should have been locked while featured on the main page. Cheers, Nudve (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on another front-page showcase ;) EyeSerene talk 00:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Gilles Villeneuve
Hi Jacky

Sorry to be a pain, but I cannot find any info on "Peacock prose" and don't wish to appear to be a thickie, but could you explain to me what it is so I can avoid it lol

Many thanks for the comments on our work on these 5 GAR's so far, I am really pleased that they meet your approval and hope that we can continue with similar vigour on the last 2

regards --Chaosdruid (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that - I should have guessed really - strutting ones stuff in a verbal manner lol
 * I just couldn't find anything and I know you don't put things there that aren't relevant so was feeling a bit thick due to searchitis
 * Thanks for the speedy reply once again--Chaosdruid (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Villeneuve GAR
Hi there. Not done yet, but I would appreciate a view on whether the F1 career section is any clearer now, and if not some pointers would also be useful. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Edgar Speyer - Thanks
Thanks for the comments and support for Edgar Speyer which has now been promoted. Phew, that was hard work! --DavidCane (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Albuera
Thanks for that revert; Marshallb has tried that sort of stealth crap before. Not really inclined to keep track of the stuff these days, but appreciate your watchful eye. Carré (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC) (oops, been away so long forgot the squiggles)

I do not understand your reversions, nor do I appreciate Carré's crude language. If you read the new book by Dempsey, you will see that he corrects many factual errors made by prior historians and backs his analysis with footnotes to primary sources. I thought the point of Wikipedia was to have multiple contributions in order to end up with the best possible information, not to protect the work of earlier contributors just because they were first.--Marshalb (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)--Marshalb (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Epsom
Nice addition to the article, do you have simlar information regarding the other Normandy battles?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I recongise quite a few of those placenames but couldnt for the live of me couldnt tell you were half of them are lol.
 * Port en Bessin was the objective of 47 RM Commando, who landed on Gold Beach. I think Sully was also a place fought over by XXX Corps, it sounds very familiar but cant be 100% on that one.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

slamabad Marriott Hotel bombing
I have seen your review.It was helpful but will you help me out with removing those issues.User:Yousaf465

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Washington Park, Chicago
You were involved in the original discussion. You may wish to comment at Featured topic candidates/Washington Park, Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you supported the parent topic you should know the subtopic is at issue at Featured topic candidates/Washington Park (Chicago park).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Mark Webber
Hi Jacky

Just wondered if you might have some time to go over the article and advise as to any work left which needs addressing.

I am finishing the last citation refs that I added to the 2008 season, so should be finished about 15 mins after I post this done apart from one.

As usual all comments gratefully received !

thanks --Chaosdruid (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC) updated --Chaosdruid (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Reviews
I've reviewed the two articles you put up for GAN, and placed both of them on hold. I'd link them, but they've got complex titles :) Skinny87 (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey. I have to admit I had a slight agenda when I reviewed your articles. Firstly I've been following your articles in this areas, as it's an interesting saga. But I was also wondering if you'd mind reviewing General Aircraft Hamilcar for GA? Skinny87 (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

MM
Thanks for your thanks, and congratulations! EyeSerene talk 08:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Murray Maxwell
You are most welcome. Well done and congratulations! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Villeneuve GAR II
Hi again. I'm going to be off-wiki for the next few weeks, so it might be a good time to reach a conclusion on the Villeneuve article. Your last note suggests the only remaining issue is possible some copyediting. I've been through the article so many times I'm not in the best position to judge that anyway, so you're probably better off dropping a note at WP:F1 or on the article talk page if it's still not quite there. Thanks for your patience! Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ta! 4u1e (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Action of 10 November 1808
I have reviewed and passed this article. I have left a few suggestions on the review page, but there's only one thing that is really necessary (double-checking the spelling of "mizenmast"). The rest are really just personal preference things, and I won't be at all offended if you decide against them. Anyhow, great job on yet another article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Q-ship question
Jacky, do you still have access to the book British Warship Losses in the Ironclad Era? I saw you had very nicely filled in details about the sinking of a Q-ship by SMU U-28 (Austria-Hungary) in the U-boat's article. What I'm trying to do is go through and at least create stubs for most WWI German submarines. I came across the already created article SMU UC-41 in which UC-41 was credited with sinking Nelson and Ethel and Millie. Looking at uboat.net, I see that Nelson is listed there as a false name for the boat G & E and listed as a Q-ship. I also see that Ethel and Millie was operating under the false name of Boy Alfred and was also listed as a Q-ship. Uboat.net lists both Nelson/Boy Alfred and Ethel and Millie/G & E as being sunk by SMU UC-63. If you can shed any light on which U-boat sank the pair, it would be most welcome. Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Jacky


 * I saw this conversation, which raised an issue for me. I’ve posted a question at the Tom Crisp talk page: You may like to comment. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Invasion of Martinique GAN
Hi there! I've reviewed the above article and placed it On Hold, pending changes to be made to the article per my comments in the review. Skinny87 (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Mark Webber
Hi Jacky

Hoping you were away for good reasons, rather than illness etc, and I hope you had a good time.

Thanks for the comments on the Webber article, and I promise the rest will be done over the next week. Thanks for your hard work on these and for your advice which ultimately lead to both a better article and to improvements in my editing and writing style.

Cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well even though perhaps not pleasure, best wishes and good luck with the job
 * It was good to see people getting involved like that and with so much going on in other F1 matters it was pretty impressive, though would have been good if we could have done it a bit quicker lol.
 * We have a new season starting soon and I'm sure all the F1 articles of current drivers and teams will need lots of TLC over the next 8 months.
 * thanks again for your advice and rest assured it made a big difference to me if not to others concerning prose and peacocks lol
 * --Chaosdruid (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In that case - Congratulations !! - seven years, now I'm a little curious, but can only think of medicine, teaching at degree level and Law.
 * Anyway something that you have dedicated that amount of time to deserves praise - well done and I hope it gives you everything you dreamed of.--Chaosdruid (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Morrell, Peer review
A couple of months back, during the peer review of New South Greenland, you commented that it would be good to see an article on Captain Benjamin Morrell, the "discoverer" of the non-existent land. Well, I did the research, and here it is. If you, as the article's godparent, can spare a few minutes to look at it and perhaps comment, this would be much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your speedy and helpful comments. You can check out my responses on the talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming elections
You may like to give serious thought to standing for coordinator in the upcoming elections. You're a hard worker, with loads of experience of the project: you'd be a real asset? – Roger Davies  talk 19:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Up to you, but with 15 coords there's slack in the system if people need to back off for a while. – Roger Davies  talk 20:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Mhm. Despite the fact that the vast majority of the current tranche is extremely busy both on and off wiki, things still ran smoothly. Cam (Chat) 23:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, in fact, it's probably our best-ever group of coordinators .... – Roger Davies  talk 05:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The coordinator election pages are now all set up. Feel free to nominate yourself here. &mdash; Roger Davies  talk 07:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names, a procedure has been developed at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

MH Coord
I'm really glad you decided to run; I think you'll be perfect for the job. Best of luck ;) EyeSerene talk 18:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm definitely leaning towards it at the moment - the last few months have been great, and having plenty of bodies makes for a realistic workload (though others have been far busier than I have!) The only downside is that I haven't had much time for GA. EyeSerene talk 18:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there's no shortage of reviewing at Milhist anyway! Thank you for your kind words, though I won't reply in kind in case anyone thinks we're colluding ;) It's always been the greatest of pleasures working with you on your articles though, and I hope to be working with you again soon. EyeSerene talk 18:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Morrell etc
First, this is to let you know that I have sent Morrell to FAC, following your helpful review comments and some further attention at PR.

Secondly, seeing your expertise in British naval history makes me wonder whether you would be interested in a project I am currently hatching about the role of the Royal Navy in polar exploration. This would cover a period of about 350 years, from Willoughby and Chancellor to Captain Scott, and would encompass around 20 major expeditions. The project is still in the earliest of stages—not even on the drawing board yet—but if you like, I'll keep you informed and you can decide if and how you would like to contribute. Brianboulton (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The shape of the RN in Polar Exploration project is still forming in my mind. I will probably begin by drafting a kind of portmanteau article to summarise the topic, and from that identify daughter articles that can be developed or written from scratch. I am somewhat overwhelmed at the moment, and am unlikely to begin any serious work on the RN polar project for at least a couple of weeks. I'll keep in touch & let you know how things develop. Brianboulton (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Re Nelson
Yes, Nelson went as a 14-year-old midshipman on HMS Carcass in 1773. He had a fight with a polar bear; there's a famous picture of it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Answer
Great answer! It is good to see that you have really thought your answer through. Have a Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 23:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessments
Hi Jackyd! When you delist good articles in the future, please don't forget to also remove the good article rating from the Wikiprojects. Thank you! Hekerui (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

mil hist coordinator elections
I noticed you answered favouring quality over quantity as regards articles. My personal experience of looking up facts on wikipedia leads me to expect that the articles which I happen to be interested in will most likely be 'start' grade. this is born out by the grading statistics, which are that 45% of articles are stubs and probably not very useful, while 45% are start, which means they are nearly as likely to pop up on a random search as the stub ones, and probably have at least a moderate amount of useful content (some indeed are very good). Wikipedia would lose most of its usefullness to readers if all the articles below grade b were stripped out. Comprehensive coverage is vital to an encyclopedia. I was amused once to find a deleted article stored on my user space actually had a high search rank on google and came up when I was trying to research its subject.

I did not post this as a question on the election board, but surely you are losing sight of the purpose of an encyclopedia in claiming quality is more important than quantity. Surely for most purposes a shallow but broad coverage is much better in a general reference work? Sandpiper (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I do ramble and will try again. On those occasions when I have used wikipedia to find out information, my experience is that most of the articles I find useful would be categorised as start. Generally, you appear to be equating the 'start' grade with quantity, and the higher grades with quality. I would say to you, that if I had to choose to throw away all the high grade article, or throw away all the start articles, I would do better to keep the much more extensive set of start articles (though I would hold out to try to also keep the 'start' versions of those articles which had been improved, for completeness). This would make a much better encyclopedia, which is what wiki is supposed to be. I rather think it more important to bring stub and poor start articles to a B or the putative C standard, rather than expanding good B articles into excellent ones. I see nothing wrong with excellence, and if some people want to concentrate on producing it, that is perfectly fine. But as far as an encyclopedia is concerned, it is not normally understood to be a definitive work on any subject, but a general introduction to everything. Concentrating on quality over quantity seems to me at odds with the concept of creating the worlds greatest encyclopedia.


 * I'm afraid that isn't much of an answerable question. You are right that seeking quality turns up quantities of new facts. But I don't think that is quite how the issue of quantity V. quality is meant. The question as I see it is that it is more useful to have a wide selection of less complete articles than it is to have a narrow selection of very detailed ones. Everyone is broadly heading to the same point, with excellent articles on everything. The question is do you feel it better to take just a few articles and work them up to excellence, or spread your effort into creating a more comprehensive set of more modest but nonetheless very useful articles. I might add, history suggests that the high end quality grades are not a little illusory, in that the standards keep changing. While I don't want to make this personal, The Francis Harvey article also illustrates the difficulty of taking an article, following the rules and getting it to FA, yet a later study reveals it to have major flaws. Clearly no one saw these before, and again the moral I draw from this is that it is better to build up a wide base of knowledge before striving for the heights in just one area.


 * Oh, I used the 'start' grade as cutoff above because it exists and is something like 50% of articles. However, the current B articles here at about 4% of all articles are much the same in terms of usefulness as the top end of the start range which fail B for relatively minor omissions. My annoyance over the ' number of angels on the head of a pin' stuff is really directed at the grades above B where I feel excessive effort is being directed into what amounts to diminishing returns. I see that in fact you agree that it would be worthwhile to try to sort out this lump of start articles. As a question then, do you agree it is more important to work up the great  many poor articles to a modest standard than spend finite resources to polish articles which are already pretty good? Sandpiper (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Francis Harvey bugs me because we should never be in the position of promoting an article on the front page if there is anything wrong with it. For such a thing to happen implies the total failure of the grading system. At the same time I completely understand the wikipedian difficulty that an article is only as good as the information available to editors. Having come to know something about Jutland, I can see problems which would not be obvious simply from hunting the sources which direcly talk about the incident. I am convinced that Harvey became part of someone's propaganda campaign, and it may be that none of the survivors was ever quite certain exactly what he did. The Jutland article itself is a former feature article, and I have seen quite a few others which have been demoted. My experience suggests that actual content checking is one of the weakest parts of the article validation process. References do not guarantee good content. I repeat myself, but this all exemplifies to me that it is better to  create good rounded articles rather than brilliant ones. I would not for one minute criticise people who hold the alternate view, so long as they leave room for for those who disagree where best to spend their time to get on with their own article development needs.


 * Mil hist refusing to adopt a C grade is a case in point of disrupting the efforts of people like me who feel the start and below end of the system is in fact the most important part of the encyclopedia as it now stands. I don't care whether a B is a high mark or a low one, but I expect a grading system which makes room for all the articles somehow. I am afraid that debating this with you and others leaves me more convinced that the present system is confused and positively encourages wasted effort marking top level articles. In the long run this situation is unsustainable. If the number of articles in the top grades becomes significant, the relatively few people working on assessment will be utterly unable to keep track of articles. It is essential to straighten out the system to get rid of any wasted effort and so that standards are uniform across all projects. My view would be that eg the mil hist efforts to make the B grade harder has contributed significantly to the  'bunching' in the upper grades which now leads me to question their usefulness. Had  mil hist accepted the generally lower B grading used elsewhere, then having a rounded GA as a baseline acceptable standard for a worthwhile article might have made sense. However, pushing up the requirement for B has resulted in even worthwhile articles dropping into the  start category. Which is not to say that giving the system a good kicking is necessarily a bad thing if it gets people trying to straighten it out for everyone. Sandpiper (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't consider it an accusation, more an observation. I thought I remembered mil hist proudly taking credit for adoption of the B tick box system, which however is implemented inconsistently here from how it is done by the article assessment team. If you consider the observation an accusation, then I feel it says more about your own sensitivity to criticism in this regard. I rather thought I was significantly re-stating quite a bit you had already said here and on the election questions page. I think the assessment team made a bit of a mistake emphasising the optionality of the assessment standards. Although of course people do what they like, I agree with you that the system becomes a little meaningless if people just do their own thing. I have never been happy with the assessment system, but have always felt it an unhelpful sabotage of their work to simply impose my own standards. Which is why, by and large, I mark articles here according to the standards MH likes to impose. (Though it is rather absurd, and as you say unhelpfull, that an article may get several different grades from different projects).


 * However, having said all that about different people doing things the way they want, since wiki is edited by volunteers the only way articles can ever be maintained is by thousands of different people making those assessments. It will be impossible for that to be done in a centralised way, unless there are an awful lot more people around who love assessing articles they know nothing about than seems to be the case now. And of course, the only people who can really assess an article at the highest level are those who are knowledgeable about the content. I can pick up an article I know nothing about and assess it in depth, but it takes an awful long time and could not work for our 10 million articles. The only way the system can work is by adoption of a wiki wide standard. As to being someone who expects things done in a hurry, no. i have been grousing about the assessment system for years. In fact, I notice an argument frequently put forward on mil hist is that some change can not be done because of the work involved: this always puzzles me, because I would take it  as axiomatic that everything on wiki is done as and when someone gets round to it, so changes will just get adopted the next time someone has occasion to visit an article in the normal course of their editing. Sandpiper (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand your comment that B grade was inadequate for the projects needs. Did the project feel that GA or A was then too severe for the projects needs? In what way was the official definition of B a problem? You seem to be saying that it is desireable for mil hist to work to different standards to wikipedia as a whole, which seems rather perverse in a cooperative venture. Consistency of wikipedia is very important from the point of view of its reputation and usefullness in the outside world. I don't see that mil hist going off on its own can help. The ABC grading system is also a wiki wide standard, and obvious conflict currently exists when the people running it attempt to reconcile grades given here with the purpose for which they invented the system, to uniformly assess articles for a published version of wiki. I suspect they have been tearing their hair out over mil hists input to the process. (somewhere is a mil hist page about it). I repeat the point which you seem to agree with, that purely centralised assessment of higher grade articles is unsustainable, and this will have to be done by individual projects or just passing inexperienced editors. consistent wiki wide standards are ultimately inevitable if the system is to work. Sandpiper (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I understood your point. It is my argument that centralised assessment is unsustainable, yours was that it is the only possible approach. The people seeking to produce a published version of wiki are exactly the ones who devised the ABstartstub system, assessed by individual projects....for publication purposes. It is my considered view that centralised assessment will become impossible because of the vast number of articles involved. While some projects have decided they want different standards to everyone else, I'm afraid that I don't really see their need for them. Sandpiper (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Imperial Napoleonic triple crown


Your Imperial Napoleonic Majesty, outstanding work! Especially on Second Ostend Raid - quality contribution about a key historic/strategic event. Cirt (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox results guideline
Hi, considering that you took part in this discussion few days ago, please express your opinion in the straw poll recently initiated. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Illawarra Steam Navigation Company
Hi! I just wanted to give you a head's up - the new semester started, so the last couple of weeks I've been racing to get materials together for students. But I'm going to spend tomorrow on this article, now that all the sources are ready and I have an idea about how to fix it, so luck holding I'll have something worth looking at again come Monday. :) I've got enough to get it back onto shape, although I'll probably split of the list of ships to a separate page, once I have some prose to replace it with. - Bilby (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made a pass at cleaning it up. Normally I wait a few days to get a bit of distance from it before making a second pass at the prose, but I'll run through it tomorrow to make sure any obvious errors are covered first. Otherwise, I think the form is now closer to GA, but any and all suggestions would be much appreciated. :) Thanks for being so patient - this proved to be a harder GAR than normal as the sources were a tad tricky to track down, and the original article had little to build on. - Bilby (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added the last bits from Bach's book that I thought were worth including at this point. Generally I've trimmed back the secondary information (such as the fate of each of their vessels, and some of the details on the ports), and replaced it all with prose. Everything is now properly sourced, as far as I'm aware, and I've made an initial pass at cleaning up my errors. It's probably worth having a look at now to see what else needs to be done, and whether it is close to GA - either way, I need to get some distance or another set of eyes. :) It was a fun topic, though. I might have to do another maritime article at some point, just for fun. - Bilby (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

C-Class
It is great to see such diversity in the Military History WikiProject. Even though we don't agree I still respect your opinion and it seems that one of us will have to bow to the consensus of the WikiProject. I am so glad to see that people are really showing that they care about the future of this WikiProject, keep up the good work! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 14:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Congrats on the Imperial Napoleonic triple crown! Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 14:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
... for your improvements to the Neeld Baronets articles; I am not a historian by nature or qualification, although as I age I do feel more in touch with the past than with the present! Cheers. -- Rodhull andemu  02:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Royal Navy in Polar exploration
Thank you for your note. I think the Clowes history runs to 7 volumes. The period covered by Vols 4 and 5 is barren so far as polar exploration is concerned, but Vols 6 and 7 might have some meat - Parry, Ross, Franklin etc. I'll check out availabilty on Amazon and Abebooks. The basic book I use for broad outline is a two-volume history called The Royal Navy in Polar Exploration by E.C. Coleman. It covers the period from Frobisher to Scott, and has something to say about every naval polar expedition during that time. Coleman is not a professional historian, but he gives a good overview and is mostly accurate. I'm a bit tied up with my opera FAC at the moment, but when that's done I'll be able to give more time to the navy! Brianboulton (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

DRV
I have opened a DRV on the wrangler categories, on which you opined. Occuli (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Concerning jc37's (and Good Ol'factory's) interpretation of Deletion review rules after wasting too much time thinking about what they mean - several words that spring to my mind are "baroque", "illogical", "preposterous", "unworkable", "based on numerous non sequiturs",.and above all "creative". I'd reply there with a point by point analysis, but I felt I have overstayed my welcome, having gone on far more than I wanted to, bemused that anyone could say such things.  Anyway, I don't think they should be taken seriously, and not as representing real policy in any way.John Z (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

GAN
Thanks for telling me about - I had absolutely no idea. Looks like I may have mistyped something while closing the previous article I reviewed, and left the "on hold" for that one wrongly attached to the entry that I guess must have been above it. Anaxial (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!
Congrats on your election as a Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject! In keeping with the tradition of the project and in honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am honored that I was elected to my new position of assistant coordinator, and look forward to working with you for the next six months. Lord Oliver   The Olive Branch 01:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm really pleased you were successful. Looking forward to working with you ;) EyeSerene talk 10:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Thankyou to every one who commented here and who voted for me, much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Forgot to remind you to drop in on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators to get your task force preferences registered. With 16 coords it'll be a low workload each, but there's also plenty of competition for them ;) EyeSerene talk 21:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for help
Hi mate, I'm currently shifting through the 23,000 odd articles with incomplete B class checklists and came across 1719 Establishment - a maritime article. I am having trouble completing the checklist and assessing it as I don't know enough about the topic to determine if it meets the Coverage & Accuracy criteria. I have put it up on the Mil Hist assessment page and Ed17 suggested I contact you for a review. Would you feel up to taking a crack at assessing it? I'd appreciate it if you could and then complete the B class checklist, regardless of whether it remains a start or becomes a B. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help, mate. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Map request
I will be glad to make a map - I have another map request in line ahead of yours, so it may be several days. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I am starting to think about the new map. I can make something like File:Battle of Bantry Bay,11 May 1689-en.svg without the lines, the question is how much of Ireland and Britain to include, and also what palces and cities to label. Please let me know what you need, and I will work on it. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine - thanks. I wasn't sure if say London or Dublin needed to be labeled. I am still not sure if you want all of Ireland (and Britain) shown or just the southern part. Sounds like just the south, but let me know please. Other than that I can start work on it (am also working on the other requested map, but got the big article I was finishing off to peer review finally). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Have been busier than expected but hope to havea draft map in the nxt day or so - if you have a chance would you mind looking at Cherry Springs State Park, which is at peer review? Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, how's this? I searched the article and did not find a mention of the Scilly Isles or Teignmouth or Waterford or Kinsale, so I did not put them in the map. If you want me to add them or anything else, please say the word. Thanks too for your review of Cherry Springs - I will reply there in the next 12 hours or sooner. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replied at the peer review - thanks for pointing out the rough spots, which I have hopefully made smoother. Thanks too for the kind offer - I will keep you in mind as I next bring something to PR. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(out) I am being very dense - would you mind clarifying if I think the detail is fine for this article in the Cherry Springs peer review means you a) want to leave the level of detail on Native Americans leaving Pennsylvania as it now is, or b) if you want me to add the things I mentioned that could be added in the peer review (Iroquois with the British, ethnic cleansing). I understand I need to clean up the other sentence in any case, but was not sure if that was all. Thanks and sorry for the bother, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ship articles
Hi Jackyd, I've noticed that from time to time you create some new ship stubs using the entries on Michael Phillip's website. I assume this is to fill in redlinks in the excellent campaign/personnel articles you write? Might I be able to offer you a hand with this, if you wanted me to work up some more thorough articles on the ships in question? Michael Phillip's website is usually excellent but there are some occasional slip ups (on one occasion he has completely confused two ships of the same name!). I've gone through and expanded the article on HMS Daedalus (1780) and found several minor errors that conflict with more reliable sources, and added the ship's details etc, which aren't on his website. I've noticed you sometimes ask Rama for articles about French ships, I just wondered if you would rather some one else worked on the British ones? (I'm assuming this because of their rather rough state compared to the far more detailed and finely crafted/sourced articles you often write, if I've got this wrong please feel free to tell me so). I've no wish to take this away from you if you want to carry on writing these ship articles, but I thought I'd just make the suggestion. Let me know what you think. Benea (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, it's no imposition. I have quite a lot of source material lying about with details on ships, and some on their careers, but it tends to take a kick for me to work on any one particular subject for an article. Usually I watch the 'new articles' section of WP:SHIPS to look for articles I could improve or expand, but a list of requests will work just as well for giving me something to focus on! Completely up to you how you want to structure it, but pointing me to a list of your priorities at any given moment is absolutely fine. I just didn't want you to think I was trying to muscle you out of writing them yourself. Benea (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in GA Sweeps
Thus far, you have 203 listed reviews. For this very impressive and appreciated work, I hope you enjoy this award and display it proudly. لenna vecia  04:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

GAN for Action of 14–17 April 1809
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

1964 Brinks Hotel bombing
I've responded. Thanks,  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 04:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Rollback
-MBK004 23:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Crisis
An unexpected development on Wikipedia that concerns us has been brought to our attention by Moonriddengirl. Please follow this link for more information. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Andrés Nocioni
Hey. I put this article up for community reassessment. Since you closed your reassessment as keep and seemed to be rather reluctant about it, your input there would be valued. Wizardman 16:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Terry Bradshaw
Hey there, just wanted to give you a heads up that the article still needs to be delisted following the fail (with which I agree). Hekerui (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I was confused because the reassessment box was left on the article. Hekerui (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ship image
Do you like this, here? I am using it to develop the biographical article Sir Clements Markham but it might be of use elsewhere, too (there is a stub article for the ship). Brianboulton (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Old tricks
Thanks for the heads-up Jacky. Seems Eye has reverted, but having looked at it I may put a bit back in. He didn't do a wholesale change, and some of the words he put in seem accurate. Carré (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

GA nomination for Expédition d'Irlande
Hello. I've reviewed the article Expédition d'Irlande for its nomination for Good Article status My complete review may be found here. If you have any questions about the review, please note them on the review page (which is on my watchlist) and I will answer them there. Thanks, and good editing.

GA Sweeps update
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am contacting you because you have contributed or expressed interest in the GA sweeps process. Last month, only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process with 163 articles reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

All exempt articles that have reached FA status have now been moved to a separate section at the end of the running total page. I went through all of the members' running totals and updated the results to reflect the move. As a result your reviewed article total may have decreased a bit. After removing duplicate articles and these FAs, the running total leaves us at ~1,400 out of 2,808 articles reviewed.

If you currently have any articles on hold or at GAR, please consider concluding those reviews and updating your results. I'm hoping that this new list and increased efforts can help us to increase the number of reviews. We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you know of anybody that can assist please direct them to the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, will get an award when they reach that mark. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

GA nomination for Roquebert's expedition to the Caribbean
Hello. I've reviewed the article Roquebert's expedition to the Caribbean for its nomination for Good Article status My complete review may be found here. If you have any questions about the review, please note them on the review page (which is on my watchlist) and I will answer them there. Thanks, and good editing. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If you get a spare minute
Would you mind reviewing Downing Street mortar attack for me please? Thanks.  2 lines of K 303  13:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Pulo Aura
Jolly good work, and just in time for a mainpage showing! While researching Dance I came across 'Ill-starred Captains', a book by Anthony Jarrold Brown (an online version is here, the part on the battle is mostly between pages 439 and 441). After the wreck of Flinders's Dolphin, three parties of seamen transferred to three of the East Indiamen, the Earl Camden, the Royal George, and the Ganges, for the voyage back to Britain. The implication is that they were of use to Dance in making the convoy seem like it was been handled by professional navy seamen, with Lt. Robert Fowler, the commander of the Dolphin men on the Earl Camden, being used to chivvy the ships into the line of battle, and deploying the men to best effect. Dance subsequently commended Fowler in his letter to the HEIC, and he (Fowler) duly received a sword and sum of money. The presence of these men is an interesting aside, and I'd be wary of making too much of it, but it might have been another factor contributing to Dance's successful deception of Linois. In the meantime I hope you don't mind if I work some of your excellent work and sources into Nathaniel Dance? Benea (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Nathaniel Dance seems to be on the verge of passing a GA review, though the advantage of a map or chart showing details has been raised. It's something I'd thought of before, but I've turned up empty handed in my searches, and cartography on wikipedia has not been a strong point of mine. It's especially frustrating of course because in his report Dance refers to a map he's made of the action, and sent on to the HEIC, but who knows what has become of it since! Since you have used maps and related materials in some of your articles, I thought I'd ask you if you could think of a solution, but I understand if there's nothing that can be done. Best, Benea (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Saw this slightly belatedly after coming to make a query about something else. If the map's survived at all, it will probably be in the former India Office holdings at the British Library, see India Office Records.  Certainly the journal of the Lord Camden is there http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=059-iorlmar_3&cid=1-1-209#1-1-209   David Underdown (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank
If you have served on any of these vessels or have any real positive contribution to make - fine! Been there done that. Out of here anyway - the whole Wikipedia project has become totally corrupt! That said - I do appreciate your calm words. Regards Medcroft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medcroft (talk • contribs) 22:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps June update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 396 articles were swept in May! That more than doubles our most successful month of 163 swept articles in September 2007 (and the 2 articles swept in April)! I plan to be sending out updates at the beginning of each month detailing any changes, updates, or other news until Sweeps are completed. So if you get sick of me, keep reviewing articles so we can be done (and then maybe you'll just occasionally bump into me). We are currently over 60% done with Sweeps, with just over a 1,000 articles left to review. With over 40 members, that averages out to about 24 articles per person. If each member reviews an article a day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. I know that may be asking for a lot, but it would allow us to complete Sweeps and allow you to spend more time writing GAs, reviewing GANs, or focusing on other GARs (or whatever else it is you do to improve Wikipedia) as well as finish ahead of the two-year mark coming up in August. I recognize that this can be a difficult process at times and appreciate your tenacity in spending time in ensuring the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Military history and those bloody islands
Thanks for your discussion on (soon to be) Talk:Military history of the islands that dare not speak their name :) If I sounded rude at any time, I didn't mean to and I'm sorry. It's always a delight to exchange with someone who has more to say than "I want, I want, I want..." --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

General Aircraft Hotspur
Changes incorporated; give it another read. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC).

German Unification GA review
Jackyd, I've rewritten the Unification of Germany article, and someone is willing to review it (although he hasn't signed up for it yet), but he is saying it's too long. Of course, it's long-- it's a big topic. Others have told me yes, it's long, but that's okay, and others have said, take out some of the headings, it makes it too cumbersome -- he's saying that it needs MORE headings and subheadings... Would you mind taking a look at it? Clearly you're engaged in various history projects, and I respect your work on the Napoleonic wars in the Indian Ocean. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Snowshoes
FYI I've renominated Battle on Snowshoes (now covering just the 1758 action) and nominated Battle on Snowshoes (1757) for GA, in case you felt like reviewing them.  Magic ♪piano 14:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Indians"
This is probably a subject best addressed somewhere other than a GA review, but it probably deserves some discussion, especially if you interact with people who dislike the term. I'm personally indifferent to the terminology used to refer to North America's aboriginals, but I'd like to hear what sort of "politically correct" terms to use that work Are "Native" and "Native American" appropriate for these uses (the latter even for tribes that are or were in what is now Canada)? This is an issue that should probably be mentioned on project pages for milhist task forces that might use such terms.
 * when tribal affiliations are not known, cannot be reliably determined
 * can also work when large numbers of tribes spread over fairly large geographic areas are involved (see e.g. Invasion of Canada (1775), where 1,500 Natives, from the Great Lakes region to New York meet)
 * are not overly anachronistic or tied to modern geopolitics (like First Nations)

Thanks for the pass!  Magic ♪piano 17:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about this, and I think you are correct - when tribal affiliation is unknown, then any term other than "Indians" would be anachronistic in an article like this. Its a difficult situation, becuase its completely impossible to please everyone and for the article to still be comprehensible. Although it is certainly true that I work with people who would be horrified by this use of the term, that probably just shows that they are too sensitive. I think the rule should be to use the tribal affiliation where known and the most appropriate historial name when unknown. Thanks for considering this issue.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to but in, but I think Canadian historians use "First Nations". "Native Americans" complicated for Canada not only because of the USA or the french Canadians, but because of the "Esquimaux" (I know, I know), problem.--Radh (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that the terms "First Nations" and "Native Americans" are anachronistic when applied to events in the 1750s. Ideally the name of the tribe from which the "Indians" came should be used, but failing that I believe that in this case it is best to make use of the terms in use at the time rather than a modern construct.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course.--Radh (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Advice please
Hello Jackyd101. I've noticed all the good work you do for people with articles that they are involved with so I'm wondering if you could have a look at Elgin Cathedral and tell me if there is an FAC lurking inside it or should I just leave it as it is. Thanks. --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the pointers. I'll get started hopefully quite soon.  --Bill Reid | (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Vizagapatam
Hi, I am reviewing Battle of Vizagapatam for GA and have made my iniial comments at Talk:Battle of Vizagapatam/GA1. It is a fine article and you should have no problem addressing my issues. Please feel free to contact me with comments or questions. (Also feel free to change any of the copy editing I did to the article.) Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

John Benbow
Hi Jackyd101, Ruhrfisch suggested you are a good reviewer possibility for the above, if you happen to have any suggestions they would be appreciated. Cheers, SGGH ping! 14:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC) An excellent and very comprehensive article!. I have made one significant change; like Nelson, Benbow never lived to reach the rank of full Admiral; both men had only reached the rank of Vice-Admiral of the White at the time of their death. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Action of 13 March 1806
Hi, I am reviewing Action of 13 March 1806 for GA and have left some comments at Talk:Action of 13 March 1806/GA1 for you to address. In general, I consider it an excellent article, just a little difficult to follow for the general reader. Fortunately, I have alread read one of your other articles on Linois! Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 17:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ronald Niel Stuart
A new user apparently one of Ronald Niel Stuart's grand-sons is querying some fo the data we have, apparaently from the Snelling naval VCs book, do you still have the book? David Underdown (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Shaun Goater
Just to tell you that I'm requesting a reassessment for this article. Spiderone (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps July update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 290 articles were swept in June! Last month was our second most successful month in reviewing articles (after May). We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. This may sound difficult, but if everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when we first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Incentive system for sweeps
Hi Jacky. Because of your experience at GA sweeps I was wondering what you thought if an incentive system was used at WT:FAR. Thanks  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 03:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Linois's expedition to the Indian Ocean
Hi, I am reviewing Linois's expedition to the Indian Ocean, a very well written and interesting article. However, I have asked you an initial question at Talk:Linois's expedition to the Indian Ocean/GA1 for you to consider. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 23:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * p.s. This is my third Linois article, so I have some background now! &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 23:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Armed Forces of the Empire of Brazil
Hello, there! For some time I´ve been working on the article Armed Forces of the Empire of Brazil. Although it is correctly sourced, I must confess that my English isn´t that great and I´m not good on working on "technical" requisites on Wikipedia, like fixing format, type of source, etc... Do you know how could I find people who would be interested on fixing the article and putting it to be reviewed for an A grade? Anyway, thank you very much. - --Lecen (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for answering so fast! I´ve written another article called Platine War and I am wating for it to be also reviewed. I´m now focusing on the article about Emperor Pedro II of Brazil but is quite hard because I have to do it all by myself! I would much easier if I could simply make the research and write, while others could help me out correcting grammar and spelling erros, and wikifying it, etc... Do you know someone who is interested on helping it out? Once again, thank you! - --Lecen (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

George Jackson civil rights leader!
Could you please also include SA man Röhm in this category?--Radh (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not realize the category was only for US citizens.
 * G. J. was a criminal turned "revolutionary", whatever that means and meant, but def. no civil rights worker, not even a prisoner' s rights activist, but a succsessful leader of a prison gang. He was a vicious person and was not cold bloodedly "assasinated", but killed while killing himself. Fred Hampton' s death really is a different story. G. J.' s ideology may have been perfectly o.k. at the time, but all the BPP would have had very strong words for everybody suggesting an "Uncle Tom" label like Civil Rights leader for them.
 * I am all for a list of BPP killed by the police or by other radical groups (US) or gangsters (like Newton was). At the time it was said that 50 of them had thus died, so the true figures may be still be interesting.
 * But perhaps also a short list of well known BPP not assassinated by the PIG: Newton, E and K Cleaver, Seale, Douglass, Browne. Isn't it strange how all the leaders of the BPP in "fascist" Amerikkka were neither murdered nor but in prison for any noticable time?
 * I know I may be too emotional about these things and tend to get carried away--Radh (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to go on and on, so have erased this stuff.--Radh (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Good article review for James Temple
Thanks for taking the time to review this article and for your helpful comments. I shall try to improve the article in the areas you have pointed out, but I'm not sure whether I'll be able to do that in seven days. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have just received a message from PBS that he is proposing to delete the James Temple article. I guess we need to put the review on hold until this can be sorted out. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe the copyright problems have now been resolved. I shall resume the process of addressing the concerns you raised. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now made a number of changes that are intended to address the comments you made in your review. The one outstanding issue is the reference to David Plant's British Civil Wars site. I have reworded the original material so that, in my opinion, the CC license no longer applies and could be removed. However, I have been asked not to remove it for the time being. If you are willing to take a look at the revised text, I think we can leave PBS to satisfy himself on the copyright issue. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have attempted to address the issues you raised in your re-review. Two of the sources still do not have page numbers. I will get these as soon as I can, but I don't have ready access to these books, so it will be some weeks before I can do so. I have commented on www.british-civil-wars.co.uk on the talk page. I believe the question as whether it conforms to WP:RS is moot since nothing in the current article comes from this source. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your work in reviewing this article and in suggesting ways that it could be improved. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Latest map
How's this? I tried adding it to one of your articles - please let me know if there are errors or if changes are needed. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome and I am glad to be of assistance - for some reason I find map making relieves stress and I was feeling a bit stressed out, so I was glad to work on it (hence the quick turnaround). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/Order of battle at the Battle of San Domingo/archive1
Hi, there were some comments made at this FLC. Were you aware of them? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps August update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

British commanding officers - 1793-1815
I've noticed your questions on Benea's userpage about British Naval Captains. Hopefully you have access to my British Warships in the Age of Sail, 1793-1817 (or its predecessor for 1714-1792 - and the 1603-1714 volume will also be available in a few weeks) which lists all British commanding officers during that era (as far as the information is available), but if you have any queries, please don't hesitate to ask. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Battle off Texel
I think ive fixed all of the issues you've raised. If theres anything further to be done let me know. Thanks! XavierGreen (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks for looking it over again, i removed the duplicate links, fixed the punctuation, and clarified the effects of the codebook. XavierGreen (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Raid on Dunkirk (1800)
Beacuse there are only 60 seconds in a minute, 51°02′85″N is an impossible latitude.

When coordinates like this appear in a Wikipedia article, it's generally because someone saw 51.0285 degrees north and thought it meant the same as 51°02′85″N. Since the article did not indicate which source provided the coordinates, I didn't attempt to verify them from the source; I simply made what seemed like the most plausible correction. After I made the change, I verified that the new coordinates were in the vicinty of Dunkirk. If you have accurate information about the location of the raid, please correct the article. Thanks, --Stepheng3 (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've recreated the old position using 51°03′25″N, which is a valid latitude. Please verify it against the old map. --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Grand Port images
Hello,

the reference for the map is La fin d'un Empire - Les derniers jours de l'Isle de France et de l'Isle Bonaparte 1809-1810, by Roger Lepelley, ed. Economica, 2000.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)