User talk:Sturmvogel 66/Archive 2

Contest update
Well, it's just 1 day until the contest begins, so I thought I'd check in with everyone and make sure you're all ready to go. First I'd like everyone to check out the main contest page and read over the rules and the scoring system. If you have any final questions or concerns, make them known on the talk page. WikiProject Aviation/Contest/History/2009 is the scoreboard that will be updated, you can watchlist it. Check out WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Submissions which shows how your submission page should look. Another example is at WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Submissions Example, and your personal page should be listed at the footer of the page, which is also at WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Users. Again, take any questions to the contest talk page.

Good luck! -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  21:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Banners
Sure no problem I will try and knock that out tonight. --Kumioko (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up
I thought a bot attached the banners. I'll just "rob" the ones on Soden and stash them on my User page in my tool kit, and add them henceforth.

Also, I thought the one para, one cite requirement was just a quirk of AustralianRupert's. I've been working on the principle that every time I changed sources, I added a cite. I figured that anyone who wanted to double-check would find it handy. It seems to me that flicking back repeatedly into the same source material would be monotonous and a pain in the derriere.

Georgejdorner (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Took me a while to get used to the idea myself, but that's the game you've gotta play if you want assessments higher than start. My rule of thumb is one cite at the end of a paragraph if everything came from one source, however many different pages, but if I use one source for the first sentence, another for the second and the original source for the third sentence then I have to cite three times. See WP:CITE for all the formal rules, but be advised that that covers the minimum acceptable standard and that B-class standards are higher. I haven't really looked, but are you aware that you can consolidate your cites if you give them a name? I only learned this about a month ago, but if you have a cite of Roberts, p. 230 you can give it a name like ref name=r>Roberts, p. 230 then all of your subsequent cites can be shortened to ref name=r/>? I've dropped the leading angle bracket to allow everything to display correctly. If that confuses you then you can take a look at the code for my Stalingrad class battlecruiser article and see it in action. It works real well if you've got software that allows for multiple clipboards. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just butting in, a message for both of you: what Sturmvogel says is pretty much right on the money. We haven't interacted much yet but now I've assessed articles by both of you in the past 24 hours, pls feel free to ask me for any advice on citations - though it looks like you're getting the hang of it pretty well... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Il-40front.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Il-40front.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I just added a fair-use rationale to the image, everything should be ok. Parsecboy (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, man. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Il16front.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Il16front.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually there is a rationale on the page if you'll look closer. I copied it right off the page discussing fair-use rationales. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ilyushin Il-16
Just interested to now why you blanked the page at Talk:Ilyushin Il-16 to remove the aviation project banner. As a member of the project you should be adding it to relevant articles not removing it? MilborneOne (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not ready to have the article assessed yet. When I'm done writing the article I'll add all the appropriate banners and B-class checklists to the talk page. You jumped the gun with your edits, appreciated as much as they are, as I wasn't expecting any edits until I put up the banner and made it more visible. Probably should have put up an underconstruction tag, but I'm not used to people finding my articles before I'm done writing them. I don't have the Nemecek book, I'll drop you a line next time I need some specs as Gordon's book doesn't give them in much detail for the prototypes. Unless, of course, you find them on your own ;-) Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK I am not involved in the assessment process just making sure that the other project members are aware of the article. So not adding the banner to stop it being assessed is not something that occurs to me, but I suspect if you have the under construction tag on the article it will not get assessed. No problem if you want a look up in Nemecek. MilborneOne (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My normal habit is not even to create the talk page till I'm done with the article to avoid premature assessments and edits, but I gather that some people track new articles to flag them properly as most new users aren't even aware of the various projects, etc. But I would like to suggest that you add a more complete project banner when you do so to make things easier on people like me who do assess articles. Stuff like the B-class check list, project and if an infobox or picture is needed would be most helpful. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK I will look into adding the B-class check list, I always add an infobox if I see one is missing when I add the project banner. MilborneOne (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks in advance. I also like to add the missing picture one as well, but that's just me. I've got no problems using no-fair-use images if that's all I can find. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Contest scoring change
I've realized there may be an issue with the scoring system, and I have a solution, which I've explained here. Feedback is requested. -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  23:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK Hook
Please do not remove hooks from DYK as you did here. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Odd, that must have happened when my computer froze and I had to reboot in the middle of nominating. Firefox had saved most of my nom and I didn't get a notice of an edit conflict. Weird. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Tiger II GA
I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to GA review Tiger II, it's my first! Ideally I would like to improve it to A and/or FA. Do you have any advice - like asking for a general Peer review first, or finding more source material, etc. ? Hohum (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It can't hurt to put it up for a peer review. You're already using the best and most reliable sources in Jentz and Schneider, but it couldn't hurt to look at Spielberger's book on the Tigers and there's another one that's a reprint of the British report for which I forget the title. It might be worthwhile looking at the other AFV A or GA class articles, not that there are many, to see how those editors handled things to give you ideas for improvements. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you tidy up the transcluded GA review from the Tiger II talk page? It's causing problems with someone trying to add comments - which are getting added to the GA page instead of the talk page - I have no idea how to do this. Hohum (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think all that was needed was a new section. That editor got confused and had to go to the GA review to post his comments; if he'd posted them underneath the GA review template on the talk page, I think he'd have been fine.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. I sort of got the impression that reviews were normally "closed" somehow Hohum (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll double-check, but I think that they're still open, unlike the A and FA reviews which are definitely closed when done. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:12, 8 September 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)

Milhist August Contest
Hi Sturmvogel. I just wanted to pop in and thank you for scoring the articles for this month's contest. I know you had an agenda, but your efforts were, and are, still appreciated nonetheless. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It needed to be done (shrug) and I didn't have anything else to do ;-) But there is one thing that I'd like you to check. Kumioko had a featured list candidate that I didn't assess and it had still hadn't been done on the score page after Roger posted the results. Can you check to see if he got his deserved points and update things appropriately? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Assessed the list as B-Class, and updated his tally accordingly. Thanks, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll second that; thank you very much for doing all that work!
 * Have you considered running for project coordinator, incidentally? As long as you're willing to do this sort of behind-the-scenes work anyways, you might as well get a shiny badge to go with it. ;-) Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kirill. IMHO, you'd make a great coordinator&mdash;much better than I am. :-) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  17:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno, there's so much that I don't know about how things are done behind the scenes. I'll think about it. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ilyushin 18
Please see the discussion, seems your hook isn't interesting enough but I think there may be something else you could use. Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 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) 21:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Tu119side.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Tu119side.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Killiondude (talk) 05:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Going offline for three weeks
Okay. I have, I believe, corrected the information to a more acceptable version. I don't have any Bulgarian figures (none that I trust anyway), so I'm hoping you would do as you said and clear it up to move this thing on a little. Dapi89 (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Contest Dept
Just a brief note to remind all entrants that, under the new arrangements, they are encouraged to self-score (but not self-assess) their own entries.

There's also a discussion about a new points scale over on the Coordinators talk page. This deals with some of the anomalies raised elsewhere and as ever comments there would be very welcome. Roger Davies talk 13:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK problem
Hello! Your submission of Ilyushin Il-32 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  Little Mountain  5   14:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!
Congrats on your election as Coordinator for the Military history Project. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Awards time!
Congratulations! You hold onto the PeMBoInAwMeSPAK for a second month, and for coming in first again...

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 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) 02:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Status on Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi
Congratulations. I have recently reviewed the article Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi, which you nominated for GA status, and deemed it suitable for that status. Keep up the good work. 02:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Status on Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga
Congratulations. I have recently reviewed the article Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga, which you nominated for GA status, and deemed it suitable for that status. Keep up the good work. 03:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Mig 3 GA
Just to let you know that I am reviewing the article you nominated. Should be finished in a few days. Ajpralston1 (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Do 17
Hello, I see you are back.

I can't find any figures for the Bulgarian Dornier fleet. The IP that brought up some issues has not returned with any figures. Is this going to be a problem? Dapi89 (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have one of the sources that he referenced. I'll write that and some new Croatian material as soon as I get a chance and pass it. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked. It is all okay. Dapi89 (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. Dapi89 (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Did You Know problem
Hello! Your submission of Invincible class battlecruiser at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! (Note: I always leave approvals to others.) Art LaPella (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hubert Latham
Hello Sturmvogel, Could you give me some advice or an explanation please. On the 19th of October you reviewed Hubert Latham as C class and the only failure was the references section which included over 50 in-line citations. Why did this fail? How can it be improved / fixed? Regards Chienlit (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added cite needed tags in places that kept you from getting a B-class rating for what was a very nice article. Add cites for those statements and I'll be happy to upgrade your article to B status.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. :) The article's main contributors, Samblob and Shallerking, have reworked both {fact| areas and further developed the page. Thanks for your prompt help. Chienlit (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Upgraded to B-class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Chienlit (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Request
Hi, I noticed you write a lot of battleship articles. I'm currently working on the Bellerophon class battleship article for the OMT project. I need help with some information. I see that you have book references related to costs of battleships, and battlecrusiers. I've looked all over the web for the costs info and can't find it. You seem to have sources on it; could you take a look at the article, and see what you can do with it. Any help would be appreciated. -Regards   Burningview   ✉  16:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did some minor clean-up, but I don't really have much on the British BBs other than Conway's. But I've requested a copy of Burt's book of British BBs of WWI through Inter-Library Loan which might have some cost data. OTOH the guy who started the Invincible class battlecruiser article before me found cost data in Parkes's book on British BBs and in Brassey's Naval Annual so you might try and get a hold of them. You'll probably have to borrow Parkes from somewhere as it's pretty expensive, but maybe you can find Brassey's on Google Books since it's so old.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the help.   Burningview   ✉  17:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Some links:
 * A price: Cheers, — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  22:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Merchant ships in convoys
Please have a look at the SS Empire Bell article and let me know if you think this is an improvement in wording re convoys. If so, I'll reword the other articles. Mjroots (talk) 10:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine. It reads much better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

copy editing and spaces
I have trouble moving stuff from word to wiki. Any suggestions about how to eliminate spaces and weird codes? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a Mac guy, so I really can't say, but perhaps dropping your text into Notepad or some similar type of text editor as an intermediate step might help?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
hope you can help :-) — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  05:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Tupolev TB-3
Not to be a pain, but Tupolev TB-3 really ought to go through an A-Class review before being demoted; we don't want to encourage the idea that individual editors can simply bypass the A-Class rating system of their own volition, I think. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that there was such a thing. Then, sure, let's put it through one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bellerophon
Thanks, much appreciated. I'll be busy in my real life this upcoming week so I won't be able to do much right now, but I will work on it sparingly.  Burningview   ✉  23:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nom for Polikarpov TIS
Hi there. Could you please check my comment at Template talk:Did you know and see whether it'd be possible to add a footnote in the article for the facts in my proposed, less-technical alternative hook? Regards  So Why  13:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Polikarpov TIS
Hello! Your submission of Polikarpov TIS at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 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) 20:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Soviet cruiser Kirov
Hi. Sorry if I caused you irritation over this article. The comments were made in good faith but I'm perturbed that I missed some details - senior moments. Part of my concern was that brevity of info shouldn't always debar promotion if the article is as complete as possible and covers significant aspects. On that score, I read somewhere that Kirov was involved in successful actions in preventing German naval access to the Gulf of Riga. Are you able to verify this? Folks at 137 (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You might be confusing her with her sister Soviet cruiser Maxim Gorky which had her bow blow off by a mine at the beginning of the war. The Chronology of the War at Sea is pretty complete for every combat and it doesn't show Kirov doing anything other than covering some minelaying sorties by destroyers in the Irben Strait, no surface action against German forces. Although some of the destroyers were engaged by German S-boats when Kirov wasn't supporting them. But I'll add this as I should have caught it earlier.


 * I agree with you that brevity isn't necessarily a reason to keep an article from being promoted, provided that all reasonable sources have been consulted. Kirov and some of her sisters simply didn't have an eventful war with which to bulk up an article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Henry Petre
Tks for the GA review/pass mate. cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing to thank me for, you earned it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

RAE Hurricane
I see you have put a tag at the end of the last sentence of the first para in Design and development; which bit of that sentence needed support? There are several statements within it. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The bit about the competitions is the non-obvious fact. Remember one cite per paragraph is a pretty good rule of thumb. It would be nice have some pictures of these birds. Can you find some and upload them under fair use on the english wiki?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is one now of the Zephyr; I put it up just after your last visit! Perhaps I'm over-cautious about copyright, but they are quite hard find, especially civilians, as crown copyright images are rare. I'll have another look at fair use.  When you say the bit about the competitions, do you mean confirm which aircraft was at which Lympne?  If so, MilbourneOne's new Lympne light aircraft trials should cover that.TSRL (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It still needs a cite saying that it flew in in the 1923 competition. Another Wiki article cannot be used as a source. I used to be shy about uploading pictures myself, but I've gotten over that now that I've learned a few tricks. See File:YakovlevYak-1000.jpg which shows everything you need to upload a picture you've grabbed off the web. Especially the all-important fair use statement at the bottom.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem with the cite; I'll use Flight. OK to remove the tag when done?  Thanks for the image, or rather the info on images.TSRL (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll upgrade it to B-class whenever you add the cite. And feel free to ask questions about any image issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Cited. Thanks on both counts,TSRL (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Yakovlev Yak-140
Hello! Your submission of Yakovlev Yak-140 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 01:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Mikoyan-GurevichMiG-3.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Mikoyan-GurevichMiG-3.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Yakovlev Yak-8
Hello! Your submission of Yakovlev Yak-8 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I left a note at DYK. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 09:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

OMT status
When updating the status of articles, please do not forget about the section where we are keeping a running tally of the numbers of FA/A/GA articles. Thanks, -MBK004 20:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that; I'd forgotten that we're tracking the GAs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that you are currently going through and reassessing quite a few articles. Please remember to update the tables by nation once you have finished if any fall under the scope of OMT. -MBK004 22:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't forgotten, but just haven't gotten to it yet since I've been doing my usual round of assessments before I launch into either HMS New Zealand or another couple of monitors.

Talkback
well, not sure you offered comments at ACR, but perhaps you could take a look now? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mikoyan-Gurevich I-250
Hello! Your submission of Mikoyan-Gurevich I-250 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Geraldk (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Indefatigable class battlecruiser
Hello! Your submission of Indefatigable class battlecruiser at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Calmer  Waters  04:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Parnall Puffin
Hi: I've added a ref to the Pintail fin etc (silly omission on my part) and reworded the end of the following para. I was really trying to remind the reader what the inverted tail was for. That done, I've removed the flags which I hope is OK.TSRL (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I almost moved your cites from early in the paragraph to the end as I expected that the same source was used throughout, but thought that it might have been a bit presumptuous on my part. Remember you only need one cite at the end of a paragraph if the same source is used throughout. I'll go back and review the article again.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Mackinolty
That's the quickest GA review turnaround I've ever had, so mant tks - I'll get round to doing one or two myself shortly... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasn't much for me to criticize, mate; corrected a few typos and that's about it. You'd already done all the hard work. That's why I don't value GA very much as a well-written B-class will breeze through the process. Besides, I was looking for a WWI review to gets point for ;-) Actually I'd be obliged if you could take a look at my Soviet cruiser Kirov article. One guy started it about a month ago, without going through the full GAN process, and it's stalled, despite one prod from me to remind him. I'd just like it put to bed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll add Kirov to the Pe-8 review I've already signed up for since Dana Boomer stole Pearl Corkhill from under my nose (just kidding if you're reading this, Dana...!) Mind you, Storm, if you could start doing some late-Imperial (i.e. WWI-vintage) Russian articles to balance the Soviet ones, I'd be even quicker off the mark to review... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have any sources for Imperial Russian aircraft other than Gunston's Encyclopedia of Russian Aircraft, which I don't think is enough for a B-class by itself, so I'm pretty much limited to WWI ships or artillery. I'll have some more of those for y'all shortly, but they're more likely to be English or French. But don't forget stuff like 7th Infantry Division's ACR or FAC, I forget which, which did fight in WWI and will get you some review points.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of BL 18 inch Mk I naval gun
Hello! Your submission of BL 18 inch Mk I naval gun at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please check suggested elimination of the numbers. This nom might go as a lead soon. Materialscientist (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for BL 18 inch Mk I naval gun

 * Kudos to you, sir, for this excellent article that was both informative and pleasant to read! — Kralizec! (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very kindly, sir!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Polikarpov NB
Hello! Your submission of Polikarpov NB at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! MuZemike 03:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Same issue with the hook for Italian monitor Faà di Bruno as well. MuZemike 20:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Dutch 1913 battleship proposal
Hi, I've just finished expanding this article to incorporate more information on the various proposals for the ships. I was unable to find any information about which 14 inch guns would have been fitted, but these were definitely specified by the Dutch Government. Could you please review the article and consider if it now meets the B class criteria? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Polikarpov
I posted a concise translation of the Russian article on Polikarpov's twin-engined at User:Outline_of_an_editor/box. Note that the authors don't really make distinctions between VIT-2 and SPB (or SBP), for them naming is just a reflection of the politics inside the industry. The -D suffix (as in SPB (D)) appears in the text only once, when they mention "Polikarpov's men working on SPB(D) design leaving for Mikoyan", FWIW, I did not even bother to include the tidbit. Outline of an editor (talk) 08:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK problem
Just one little thing: T:TDYK. Ucucha 02:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * and T:TDYK :-D Materialscientist (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Good Topic!
Congratulations on achieving GA for all four articles on the Invincible-class (Invincible class battlecruiser, HMS Invincible (1907), HMS Indomitable (1907), HMS Inflexible (1907)). A trip to WP:GTC is in order... (see these topics to get the formatting correct: WikiProject_Military_history/Maritime_warfare_task_force/Operation_Majestic_Titan) -MBK004 04:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Way ahead of you; I just need to clean things up a bit for consistency, etc. before I submit it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Any update on this? The articles do not need to be perfect, and it would be nice to have another GT before the end of the year (remember that the nominations take 14 days). -MBK004 06:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My time right now is rather constrained, but I should be able to make the necessary revisions this week.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, needed less work than I'd remembered so I went ahead and nominated them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

re: November Contest
All 55 of the articles entered for November are down in the "Log" section where they should be, so there is no problem there. The only issue was that the "Contest entries" and "Scoreboard" sections had merged together, as Auntieryth55 entered some articles for December but left a typo in the table. I have just fixed this, so it's all good now. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
 * Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
 * Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
 * Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
 * Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
 * Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
 * Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges,  iMatthew  talk  at 03:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

FlightAware
Hello Sturmvogel 66, I'm Airplaneman. I have seen your article assessment and creation work at the Aviation contest, and it looks like you are quite experienced. I am, on the other hand, new to all of this. May you please take a look at FlightAware and see if it's ready for B class? I took it from start to C class by citing more 3rd party sources, but would like a second opinion before going ahead with promoting to B class. Thank you, Airplaneman  talk 20:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added fact tags in the places that need citations to minimally qualify it as a B-class. One cite per paragraph is a good rule to follow. These sorts of articles are hard to write as you need to avoid use of the company's press releases as the major source for the article and it's is often hard to find outside descriptions/assessments of the company and its activities.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Regards, Airplaneman  talk 19:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review
Sturmvogel, as you can see, the timespan from GA nomination to GA review can be two months or more. For DYK review, I added 16 inline citations to USS Borie (DD-215) in a single morning. Getting enough inline citations for GA review of that article, as well as USS Enterprise (CVN-65) and USS Tennessee (BB-43), will only take me a few days. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, but you might want to see exactly how to nominate an article; there's more to it than just adding them to the list. Thing about it is that they can be reviewed the minute that you submit them, so it's best to have them completed before you submit them since people will review them in any order. A few days one way or another don't matter.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of HMS New Zealand (1911)
Hello! Your submission of HMS New Zealand (1911) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 09:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

File:IndefArmorDiagram.jpg
Hi Sturmvogel. Could you please delete this image forthwith, as the free-use rationale certainly doesn't cover a recent drawing such as this. I heard from John Roberts this morning that he was not impressed to find this drawing of his on the Indefatigable class page. Regards, --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 14:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello

 * Do You mind if I copy and edit some of the beautiful symbols of your personal page? :) I am not able at all in doing what You did... I You dont like it, I delete them...

regards from Roma --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 10:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for HMS New Zealand (1911)

 * Great work on this article! Very well done, sir!  — Kralizec! (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
-MBK004 05:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Mikoyan-Gurevich I-250 GA Review
Hey, I would like to give you a review for the Mikoyan-Gurevich I-250 article, but it doesn't seem like the subpage has been made... let me know you've got it ready to go! -SidewinderX (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All you need to do is to click on the "follow this link" on the GA head of the article's talk page to create the subpage.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!

 * Corrected after MBK pointed out I erred in singling you out as the first. Silly me :) Sorry about the mix up there, but my comments still stand insofar as your GT is concerned. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 01:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Pfitzner Flyer
Thanks for starting the Pfitzner Flyer B-class checklist so quickly. I have gone through the references and citations and made some additions/changes. If more needs to be done, please let me know - if and when you can make the time. Cheers. --TraceyR (talk) 11:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your changes were enough to raise its assessement to B-class. Good work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now I can get back to the Patrie! --TraceyR (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Polikapov I-5
Why are you removing perfectly good references, which were used in writing the aricle, from the Bibliography?Nigel Ish (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because a better and more complete version was used instead? Are you talking about the Wings of Fame article?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - but since you seem to own the article now I won't comment on the issue again or edit the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't own anything. If you've got more or better information, feel free to add it to the article with citations.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Aviation article for assessment
Hi mate, could I trouble you to swing by the Aviation Assessment page when you get a chance, there's an article I've got there that's been awaiting B-Class assessment for a couple of weeks now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, nice job. One question posted on the talk page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tks mate - replied. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Aquidabã
Just a friendly reminder, you've kept Brazilian battleship Aquidabã under a GA on-hold review by you since 30 October. -MBK004 16:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn it, I totally forgot about that article. Feel free to fail it; if I thought I was short of time before, I'm at a loss to describe my RL now. :) — Ed  (talk  •  majestic titan)  00:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 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) 19:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

May interest you?
I saw English Navy and thought of you and the BCs. Wikipedia talk:Did you know — Ed  (talk  •  majestic titan)  00:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip, Ed, I can probably do a couple before then, probably a BC and a monitor to vary the subject matter a bit, although I'd planned on diving into Russian BBs to take advantage of a book that I just got.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

SS Irish Oak
Thank you for reviewing the article towards GA status. Could you possibly expand a bit on what needs doing to meet GA status. Mjroots (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Did You Know question
Hello! Your submission of Petlyakov Pe-3 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! (Note: I always leave approvals to others.) Art LaPella (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Imbros
Sorry about that, i've had tried looking for Big Gun Monitors at several local libraries to no avail. It seems like an interesting book though and i plan on ordering it from Amazon soon. I had just been waiting for Christmas to end first.XavierGreen (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to spend money if it's not a core interest of yours. Inter-Library Loan is generally free, unless borrowing books from certain libraries, and they can get almost any book in the country for you. Talk to your local public library about ILL and they can guide you through the steps necessary to order it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Honeywell F124
Hey, I tried to address your concerns about the Honeywell F124 article (trying to get it up to B-class). Do you mind taking another look at it? I left a couple comments on the talk page. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 13:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for going back and taking a look!


 * In an unrelated note, I've responded to your comments over at the CFM56 A-class review. Take a look! Thanks - SidewinderX (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!
You are one of the twelve editors advancing into the second round of the Henry Allingham World War I Contest. The second round started at 00:00, 29 December and ends 23:59, 31 January. The top six ranked players at the end of this stage will advance into the final round of the contest so keep up the good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

HMS Lord Clive
Hi, Sturmvogel:

I have just finished assessing (and passing, at B-level) the article HMS Lord Clive (1915). In doing so, I made some minor edits, mostly fixing typos and cutting out some unnecessary words; you may wish to review my work to be sure that I have not made some colossal blunder. Feel free to revert if you must; it will not alter my assessment.

One problem remains, not of your making, but it irks me enough that I have to comment on it. In the section on armament, two antiaircraft guns are mentioned; one of 40 millimeters, the other of 47 millimeters. The problem then arises with use of the undefined undefined template, which converts both of the figures to 2 inches (40 mm is more like 1.57 in, 47 mm about 1.85 in). My guess is that almost nobody but a pedantic physicist will ever notice, but what the hey, I am a pedantic physicist. I think that there is some cure for this, but I am not familiar enough with the template and do not have the time right now to learn. That is why I leave the problem on your doorstep.

Cheers, PKKloeppel (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

HMS Lion- comments on trimming the hook at DYK page.
Hello! Your submission of HMS Lion (1910) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK Question
I noticed that you seem to be pretty experienced in the realm of "DYK", so I figured I'd shoot you a question. I've got a DYK that has gotten the checkmark in the template talk page; is there anything else I need to do for it to find its way to the front page? Or will the powers that be take care of it once its been approved? -SidewinderX (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, they'll run it whenever they feel like it. My Pe-3 DYK was from several weeks ago, IIRC. You can check the upcoming queue of DYKs, although I forget exactly how to do that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sturmvogel - can you please move the name of the Article on Battleship Gangut (1888) back to a battleship from a coast defence ship - All Russian language sources (I am Russian) refer to her as a battleship (броненосец) rather than as a coast defence ship (Броненосец береговой обороны) - thank you for your work
 * Please sign your comments, I find it disturbing that I don't know who you are. But, no, I won't move it back. She may have been termed a battleship in the Imperial Navy, but in reality she was a coast defense battleship, just like the General Ushakov-class ships and a number of French ships of the period.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Russian clean-up and British English
I would be glad to help with Russian, don't hesitate to ask. As to English, I only try to keep consistent spelling, whichever it is; I actually prefer US spelling for myself. It is natural to keep UK spelling or British articles, but otherwise it is a matter of WP:ENGVAR. Notes like "Russian topics should be written in British English" are entirely baseless. Materialscientist (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 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) 04:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review of Max-Hellmuth Ostermann
Thanks for starting the GA review of Ostermann. I wonder if the review is still in progress and if so what your concerns are? The pre-formatted assessment list has an unresolved link which leads me to this question. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I left a note on the review page. Unfortunately my sources do not reveal much about his personal life. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nimitz class aircraft carrier
Sturm, since the nominator has removed the article from the GAN page, you can go ahead and fail the review since he has also opened a peer review for the article. -MBK004 22:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, when you are cross-listing reviews to MILHIST, please follow the standard MILHIST instructions as well for consistency. There was some clean-up I had to do associated with your review for Petlyakov Pe-8. -MBK004 22:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that; I knew I'd done something wrong, but couldn't figure out what. Do we need to review the instructions to spell things out a bit more clearly or was I just a little more thick-headed than usual? At any rate, thanks for cleaning that up for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is probably a combination of both, take a look at what I did:, also, it would probably be better to use the MILHIST templates for announcing open reviews instead of hand-writing out those notices for reasons of canvassing since you are the nominator. -MBK004 23:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Red Tail Project/GA1
Have you completed Talk:Red Tail Project/GA1? If a fail is your final decision, you need to update Talk:Red Tail Project and remove it from WP:GAC. If not, you need to make further commentary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed the problem in the lead myself. Add the missing citation and I'll pass it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your review of Samuel Escue Tillman
It's the first article I've taken from scratch to GA. I must admit I feel a little like the Jonas brother the day after: "Is that all there is to it?" I'm trying to better understand the Good Article process well-enough so I feel competent to review some of these. Would you be willing to explain why my article was a quick pass? Maybe mentor me through a couple of reviews? BusterD (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite simply you met all the criteria. You write well so quality of prose wasn't an issue and your lead summarized the entire article, which is often a problem. You were generally compliant with the MOS, so that wasn't an issue. All of your paragraphs had at least one cite in each and everything was verifiable so you didn't do any OR and you met all the reference requirements. You covered his life in a fair amount of detail, including his personal life, which is often a problem with biographies, in a neutral manner. You had a good picture with no licensing issues, nobody was engaging in an edit war, etc. In short, a good article.
 * The best way to learn how people judge the requirements is to go through GA reviews for various articles as everybody interprets them a bit differently. Taking a look through the articles currently undergoing review and comparing the article with the comments is probably the easiest thing to do right now. But you could go to the list of good articles, then to their talk pages and click on "Good article nominee" in the GA header and read that review. Doing this would probably be the best way to learn how to do a GA review. If you want to do one yourself I can offer my own comments as well if you'd like, but I'd suggest that you read a bunch of reviews first to get your feet wet and then do one yourself. They're really not so hard; you just need to learn what to look for. And everybody does theirs a bit differently. Forex, I tend not to worry so much about the niggling MOS issues like hyphens vs. n-dashes vs. m-dashes, etc., whereas some people are demons for that sort of thing. Just remember that a GA review is not as strict as an A-class review or much less a FA review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been doing some reading; the Tillman nom was a chance to validate my sense of the GA requirements. My feeling was that the article just barely passed content requirements but was quite solid on the mechanics. I think Tillman's a subject worthy of taking to FA class. If you're game, I'd like to take a crack at reviewing George H. Steuart (Brigadier General) (which is well within my comfort range for sources and general knowledge). If you'd agree to look over my shoulder, I'll initiate the review and write my comments within the next 48 hours. I'd begin by suggesting a page move... BusterD (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It probably does need to be renamed, but I'm not real familiar with the naming conventions for individuals to tell what the best name would be. Just be sure to follow the proper procedures and propose the move on the talk page before doing it. You should probably do it with the fellow's father's page as well. I can give you my take on the article once you've started the review; just let me know when.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you give my review a look? I hope I didn't sound too discouraging. I'm having real difficulty with my unfamiliarity with the checklist template. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How am I doing? Did I miss something big on my first pass? BusterD (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Milhist task force reorganisation
Following the project's recent discussions, I've now merged the Science task force with the Engineering and technology task force to form the new Military science and technology task force. Because you were a coordinator of one of the two defunct task forces, I've transferred your coordinatorship to the new task force; you may wish to update your watchlist accordingly. There are still a few wrinkles being worked out, but most of the new infrastructure is in place and the rest should follow shortly. All the best, EyeSerene talk 19:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Lord Clive (1915)

 * Great work on this article; it was fascinating read! — Kralizec! (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Petlyakov Pe-8
I left some comments here a couple of days ago, but haven't seen a reply yet. I just wanted to let you know so you could look at the comments before time runs out. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. I've been kinda busy and haven't had time to respond, but I'll be able to do so once this weekend is over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Russian battleship Sinop
Hello! Your submission of Russian battleship Sinop at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk page length
Your talk page is quite long and takes a bit of time to load for me, and I'm on a pretty fast computer. Perhaps it is again time for you to archive it? -MBK004 23:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)