User talk:Skinny87/Archive1

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, article logistics, and other tasks.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention.
• The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill 20:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Skinny87, attempted to answer your question on the main talk page - hope I addressed what you were looking for. Don't hesitate to ask me at User talk:Buckshot06 if you've got further queries. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Citations

Wikipedia:Footnotes is probably the easiest one to follow. Cheers! Kirill 23:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:Operation Varsity

Hi, I just wanted to let you know I responded to your question on my talk page. I like to keep everything in one place :) Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

It is a fairly simple process once you get the hang of it. It is all outlined at WP:MHPR. First off you add the |peer-review=yes to the {{MILHIST}} template on the talkpage of the article. Then save the page. It will come up with "request has been made" in red. Click on this and this will take you to a new subpage. Then you create the subpage with === [[Name of article]] === and write your comments on it. Usually something like I want to improve this article. I have expanded XYZ, what do people think needs to be done? I have created the subpage for you at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Operation Varsity. Leave your comment there and once you have done it then follow this link and add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Operation Varsity}} and save it. Hope that isn't too complicated. If you need any help, just ask on my talkpage. Woody (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Skinny87 (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I will review it when I get a bit of time. Woody (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Skinny87. I've left some comments for Operation Varsity on the article talk-page. Feel free to contact me for further assistance. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 00:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

Personally, I'd split the background into two sections (both with the --header-- format): "Background", "Offensive Plan", and possibly "German Defenses". That is my primary structure for the pre-battle sections. As for "aftermath", I've taken the liberty of splitting an additional section on "casualties" out of the post-battle section. Traditionally, "Aftermath" would be one section, with "casualties" as a three-header sub-section. Then, I'd create a main-section on the modern-analysis, rather than a sub-section. If all of that sounds confusing, let me know, I'll tweak it for you if you want. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Looks good. I just split the footnotes into two columns (makes it slightly easier to read). Other than that, I think the article has improved significantly from when I first reviewed. No worries on the photos. As mentioned, it isn't required for B or GA, I just think it might be nice to have some (your call). Pleasure reviewing with you! Cheers! Cam (Chat) 21:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA-Passed

Nice job! I've passed your article. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^Drop me a line§ 20:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on getting the article up to GA status. Any plans on continuing up to FA? I'm still waiting on word from the 17th ABN veterans' association, as well as the Airborne Museum in Fayetteville, NC. Hopefully they'll reply soon, and are able to provide some assistance with photographs and so forth. Parsecboy (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Review

B-Class is fairly simple. For all requests for assessment, you go to the Military History Project, go to "assessment Department", then scroll down to "Requests for Assessment" near the bottom. If you want, I can do that assessment for you.

GA-Class is a little more complicated, as it is a formal review process. Stub, Start, & B-Class can be assigned by any editor (although it's better to get someone other than yourself to assess, to avoid bias). however, GA needs to be put through the assessment process. On the same Assessment Department page, you will find a table with all of the possible assessments on it. There will be a link to "GA Nominations" on the page. Click on it, and follow the instructions on the page.

After that, you simply have to wait until a reviewer reviews the article under the GA-Class criteria, at which point it will either pass, fail, or be put on hold (in which case you have 7 days to address issues outlined, at which point it either passes or fails). All the best taking Operation Varsity forward. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the congratulatory note. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Strategic Offensive Operations'

This is now being discussed on the main MILHIST talk page if you wish to contribute. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Thanks

You're very welcome. :) Best of luck at GAN and beyond, María (habla conmigo) 18:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Hello Skinny

I see that you have been doing quite a lot of work for a 13-day old Wikipedian (assuming your userbox is correct). :-)

I would be happy to "adopt" you, though there are two things of which you should be aware: (1) I've never been involved in a peer review here, so if you are hoping for some coaching on that, I probably will not be much help. (2) I work full-time and am a student, too. I don't have a lot of spare time, but I will do my best to respond to all your questions as quickly as I can. E-mailing me will probably result in the fastest response, though you can certainly leave me messages on my talk page if time is not critical.

Regardless of adoption, I hope you grow to love Wikipedia as much as I do. It looks like you are off to a good start! Willscrlt (Talk) 10:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, consider yourself adopted! Congratulations. :-) You may contact me on my talk page or by e-mail, depending on the urgency of your request. So, do you have any burning questions or concerns right now? --Willscrlt (Talk) 21:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man. Just a note on the PR stuff. If you need assistance with Peer-Reviews, you can always contact me. I've done a lot of that stuff (gotten an award for it actually) with Peer Review, so you've got all of your bases covered. Congrats on your adoption. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I just wanted you to know that I hadn't forgotten you. If you ever have any questions or whatever, just leave me a message or an e-mail. You seem to be doing a great job so far. :-) --Willscrlt (Talk) 13:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on GA Pass!!

Congratulations on Operation Varsity achieving Good-Article Status. As a result of your extraordinarily hard work over the last little bit on the article, you get a few things.

This user helped promote Operation Varsity to good article status.

		The Original Barnstar
		For your spectacular work in making Operation Varsity a GA-Class Article, I am incredibly pleased to award you this barnstar. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 00:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 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) 02:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Bols

Good work on this one. Is there anything in your sources about why he didn't command a brigade? Might illustrate a bit more his nervousness at being offered command of 6th Airborne Division. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

17th Airborne: sorry I didn't get to this, but I see it's already been done. The central place for such requests, if you're looking for a wider audience, is WP:MHA#REQ. On the 13th Airborne, could you also now remove the reference sources you haven't used? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WT:MHSP#Verification

Would you mind taking a look at the plan laid out at WT:MHSP and considering joining us? Kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 23:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Invasion of Cyprus

Dear Skinny,

I'd appreciate your involvement in this. The intro I wrote, which I believe is an NPOV summary to the article, is being replaced with what I consider another Cyprus dispute related diatribe. In addition, 3meander and another Greek editor have taken to referring to me as a "vandal" for trying to revert. Please take a look if you can. --A.Garnet (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

thanks for the barnstar. They're always a serious morale-booster! Cheers! Cam (Chat) 00:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Probs. I took a look, and I hope I answered your questions. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For knocking out three GAs in a month's time, keep up the good work! Parsecboy (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normandy Project

Hey, congrats on the barnstar.

Now, onto business. You mentioned that you'd be willing to help with Operation Tonga in relation to the Normandy Campaign. I've got a small sub-page up where we can keep track of the ratings on all the articles. It is located here. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, took a look at the image (Nice picture!). just as a formatting rule, you don't need to put the |thumb|right into infobox images. You just need to put the image link & the pixel-size (which I also trimmed down to 250). Hope that helps. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, concerning 11th Airborne Division. When you need it GA-Reviewed, feel free to give me a shout. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 01:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

		Military history service award
		By order of the coordinators, for your good work tagging and assessing military history articles in Tag & Assess 2008, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Service Award. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 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) 02:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Units

Hello, I happened to notice that you've been doing work on several articles related to American military units. That has been my area of expertise during my time here on Wikipedia, as well. I also am one of the GA Nomination reviewers who looks over GA work. I just thought I'd let you know that I'd be willing to help out if you needed anything, as I have had a few sucessful GAs for US Military units, as well. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 19:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Varsity A-Class

Ping! Cheers! Cam (Chat) 20:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping! Cheers! Cam (Chat) 21:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From first glance at the 11th Airborne Division, there's just a few MoS things (notably date & footnote format) that need fixing. I've started on the footnotes (although it might take me a while), & I might do any copyediting that pops up. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I suffer from the same problem: I can't copyedit my own stuff as well as I can someone else's. I'll keep working on that periodically over the next day or so (I'm juggling Battle of Verrières Ridge's FAC at the same time, so I'm severely multitasking). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No biggy, at this stage its mostly MoS stuff & extremely minor copyediting (having undergone 5 copyedits in the last 4 months), so I'll have plenty of time to work on the 11th AbD. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I did a bit of MoS work on Varsity. When you're done this A-Class Review, I'd request a Level 4 & 5 copyedit from the Logistics Department before going for FA, which will clear up any remaining MoS & prose difficulties. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That should do it. I've gone through & replaced all of the "-" with "–", which is proper MoS formatting for FA-Class Articles. I'll take another look for MoS stuff later (One I finish this rewrite of The Moro River Campaign, which should take about 45 minutes). Looks like Op. Vars. is about to pass A-Class. If you need me, I'll be on–hand to deal with any issues you need fixed afterwards. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. there's some issues with regards to the date formatting that I've picked up after a quick skim-through. I'll have a go at that tonight. Congrats on making it to A-Class! As mentioned, I'll be on-hand for issues that pop up in the future. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, hold that thought, I just got a truckload of work in on the Verrieres Ridge FAC. I'll work on Varsity tomorrow (when I have more free time & a weekend to do so). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I think I got most of the MoS stuff. there were a few inconsistencies with date formatting (don't use the "rd" or "th" suffix after dates), but other than that it looks good. Thanks for the comments on the FAC (I feel like I'm watching someone beat a dead horse). Cam (Chat) 21:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. The FAC's done. I should be able to get onto the MoS stuff for Varsity now. Thanks for your patience. Cam (Chat) 05:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Films reversion in Battle of Normandy

Is this the place I am suppose to pose the question of why you reverted the addition to Films section of the Battle of Normandy I made? The movie 'The Longest Day' would seem to me to be every bit as relevant to the topic as the movie 'Saving Private Ryan'. Is that it was made 40 years ago and enjoyed the benefit of viewing both sides of the conflict, with content provided by individuals involved in both offensive and defensive actions somehow less relevant than the feel-good movie made by Mr Hanks?

Tatoosh (talk) 09:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is, and I personally love it, but trivia/dramatization sections are frowned upon in Wikipedia articles, so I've deleted it. Personally I think it just looks better without trivia sections - makes articles look more academic, plus in most articles the trivia is awful or badly written. I hope that's okay with you. If bot, we can certainly debate it in more detail. Skinny87 (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not debate it if you had removed the other movies as well. But if you are going to allow them to stand, there is no reason not to allow the film I added to continue there, at least that I perceive. I can understand your position about the trivia aspect, although I don't agree with it personally. But it seems odd to remove one film and allow others to remain. Tatoosh (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there may be a misunderstanding. I didn't remove The Longest Day from the trivia section. I just deleted the entire trivia section. Skinny87 (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apology then. If you removed the entire section, not simply my addition, I can only disagree with your view, but not your actions. I found only my entry removed (as it still is) and thought, seeing your moniker listed in the history page, that it was your action. Apparently someone else must have removed it. There is a note specifying the Dramatizations should be for the whole operation, not simply the initial assault. Of course the page that concerns itself only with the initial landings doesn't have a dramatizations section. I find it sad that excellent sources of information and viewpoints, both current and historical, are precluded from inclusion based on the media they are presented in (or on). But documentation of history has its trends and fads just like everything else. Sorry, I 'IP'd' in twice, thinking I was signed in already, allow me to sign this entry correctly: Tatoosh (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review of Henry Clinton

Thank you for your interest in the GA WikiProject, and welcome aboard! Your review looks good to me; you've clearly gone over the article very thoroughly, and you've caught most of the issues that would prevent GA promotion. Just a few points:

• Although we strongly encourage editors to use the templates on WP:CITET to format their citations, this isn't actually a GA requirement. There's no harm in asking for it (I usually do), but we can't fail the article if it isn't done, and that needs to be made clear. The point about access dates for web-cites is spot on, though - without this, the cite is incomplete (the reason for these is so links that go dead can be tracked down in web archives).
• You've picked up on the lack of citing in places, but specific examples might help the editors. Citations, at GA, are needed for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons." It's not so much the citation density, but what is (or isn't) cited. For example, the sentence "Late during the Seven Years' War, Clinton distinguished himself (1760–1762) as an aide-de-camp to Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick, and he was promoted to full Colonel in 1762." says he 'distinguished himself'. Unless this is backed up with a cite, it comes over as editor opinion. Also, "...Clinton strongly advocated that British forces secure them against rebel occupation, but his warnings went unheeded by Howe." Who says Howe ignored Clinton, and where do they say it? There are a few more bits like this, and a couple of quotations in "Evaluations" that absolutely need citing (this is mandatory for all quotes at GA).
• Looking at the "Notes" and "References" sections, they don't seem to gel. There are many books listed under "References" that don't appear in the "Notes" (so were they used at all?), and one in the "Notes" that has no accompanying Reference. These definitely need some work. Also, all books for which ISBN's exist (post 1966ish) should give them.
• Regarding layout, the accepted format is for "See also" to come before the Notes and Refs sections (per WP:LAYOUT), and headings should normally be singular (per WP:MOSHEAD), so "Evaluations" should be "Evaluation" (although to be honest a more appropriate title could be found - 'Evaluation' sounds rather like WP:OR. Maybe 'Legacy' or 'Aftermath'?)
• I'd also recommend moving the portrait image under "American Revolutionary War" to the right of the page to vary placement and prevent bunching of text (and it needs a caption).

I hope this helps. There are no major issues with your review, and nothing that would lead to an unsafe pass, which is really the only important consideration ;) Thanks again for your work, and all the best with the assessment. If you need anything else, you know where my talk page is! EyeSerene^talk 09:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly do that if you like, or if you prefer they can just be incorporated into your review. I'm slightly hesitant to just tack them on the end, because it might then appear to contradict you in a couple of places. Your call though. EyeSerene^talk 10:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluding reviews

There are some basic instructions on WP:GAN under How to review an article. I'm assuming you're ok with creating the review (steps 1-3 below), so you probably only need need step 4 onwards:

1. Click the "Follow this link" text in the GA template at the top of the article talk-page to open the review subpage (the page should have already been created by the nominator).
2. Add your review under the text in the edit window, without altering anything above. Per the instructions, start with a level 3 heading (eg ===GA on hold/pass/whatever===).
3. Save the page.
4. Copy the review page title, which will be Talk:Article name/subpage
5. Go back to the article talk page, and paste the copied text at the bottom of the page (no headers or new sections needed), manually adding double curly brackets around the pasted text (should look like {{Talk:Article name/subpage}})
6. Preview, then save if everything is displaying correctly.

Hope this helps (and it's no trouble, btw!) EyeSerene^talk 11:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I've fixed this up on Henry Clinton (didn't notice that before!) - you can see how it works if you look at the page markup. The 'edit' links on the article talk page GA review will automatically take you to the review subpage now. EyeSerene^talk 11:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a concern generally at GA, and one you're quite right to raise. There's nothing more demoralising that taking the time to complete a review, then seeing it go unanswered and the article fail by default. Can I ask which article you're looking at? EyeSerene^talk 11:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, I thought you were referring to the article you're intending to review next. All I can suggest is that you leave the review up for 7 days, then go ahead with the Fail if nothing's been done. If you stick around at GA for a while, you'll notice we get quite a few drive-by nominations from certain editors who then do nothing to address the review. Once a nominator has got themselves a reputation for doing this, their noms tend to get removed from the GAN queue. You're right, there's nothing stopping drive-by noms, but in these cases the nominator should really be familiar with the GA criteria and fairly sure the article will pass, or prepared to put in the work on it. EyeSerene^talk 12:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 22 February 1812

Hi, thanks for your review of the above article. I think I have addressed all the points you raised, let me know if there is anything else. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Citations

-- Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign has smiled at you! Thanks for the help with the citations, i really appreciate it. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello

Wow. I've been here for 10 months now and i still have a lot to learn. You must have a really good adopter, are very clever or are very dedicated to have been able to learn that ,and have as any edits as you do. What does your adopter do with you. Do the dive you tests, projects ..... ? Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign 20:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the offer and if i need any help i wont be afraid to ask you, my wikifriend ! Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign 20:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaia Octavia Agrippa/League of friends cabal

Hello again. I was just wondering if you wanted to join my cable. Its going to be a place where like minded people can share ideas and knowledge. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign 20:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your comprehensive comments on Military history of Australia during World War II - I really appreciate the time you've taken on this article. I've provided comments on the 11th Airborne Division article, but won't pretend that I've done half as good a job as you've done. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Barnstar. I'll dig up a reference for you on MacArthur's opposition to large-scale air drops. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that I have read this, but now I can't remember where! MacArthur's record supports it (especially the division not being dropped as a unit in Luzon and the plans for the invasion of Japan), but I can't find the source. I'll keep looking... Nick Dowling (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11th Airborne Division GA Review

Hey Skinny! I passed the review and left some comments on what I thought could be improved. JonCatalan (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar! Do you have plans on nominating Operation Varsity as a FAC? I think it's certainly a good candidate and will probably pass (most criticism will probably be centered around the manual of style - small things). JonCatalan (talk) 09:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: GAN

No problemo Señor. I can probably review two or three this week, seeing as I've finished school for the year(FINALLY!). Cam (Chat) 22:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the lower-two this week (Piotrus's nominations), although from a quick view it might take a bit of copyediting. If you start from the top, we should be able to clear up the backlog. Cam (Chat) 22:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one more thing; RedmarkViolinist is on long-term wikibreak, so one of us will have to complete the GA-Review of Arromanches. Cam (Chat) 22:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping!. Cam (Chat) 18:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've watchlisted the Varsity FAC so I can be on-hand for any issues with copyediting & MoS that might come up. Cam (Chat) 23:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uriel Sebree

I have finished making edits to Uriel Sebree, based on your notes on Talk:Uriel Sebree/GA1. Can you please take a look at this and let me know what you think? JRP (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leopard 2E A-class Assessment

Hey, Skinny. Since you passed the Good Article Review for the Leopard 2E, are you interested in voicing your opinions in regards to the potential A-class promotion? The review seems dead, as nobody but Roger Davies has commented - I want the A-class to be the priority, over the peer review, since I will be able to correct faults quickly and so anything will not necessarilly really be an issue. Thanks for your time, regardless. JonCatalan (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Skinny. If you've got a minute between the FAC for OpVars, would you be able to take a look at the ACR for Operation Tractable? Cam (Chat) 18:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Clinton GA hold

Hi again, and thanks for the note. If constructive work is underway, it does no harm to give the article a few more days, but if it looks like the work has fizzled out I'd go ahead and fail the nomination (as you say, leaving a note to encourage renom when the issues have been addressed). Your judgement has been good so far, so just do whatever you think is best. Regards, EyeSerene^talk 07:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A request, if you've got the time

Hi Skinny. I'm sure you're busy right now with the Op Varsity FAC, but if you get the time, can you take a look at SMS Von der Tann? I've been working on it for the past couple of days, getting stuff referenced and expanding the text and such. I'd like a fresh pair of eyes to look it over, and make some suggestions. I did steal the format you've been using for the references :) Anyways, if you've got the time, great, if not, that's fine too. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing from Cam; would be able to take another look at the Tractable ACR? It's fallen flat on its face as I've gotten response from a single user, and I'd like to get the thing rolling. Cam (Chat) 21:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it passed the ACR (although it is up for PR now, to let you know). I'm keeping track of the Varsity FAC...we're coming along there, we just need fewer "comment" and more "support" ;). Cam (Chat) 22:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and created a peer review for the article here, if you get time to look it over, that'd be great. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

102nd IW

Thanks for the comments. The issue concerning the citing of entire sections was discouraged by other editors. I did do it but then I was told that I shouldn't do that. The title was talked about by me and EyeSerene and we decided that since the United States Air Force was the only military unit with this designation system, it shouldn't be moved. Many people hate the designator because it's showing the obvious. I've been supported in moving back pages with the designator by other users. How do you combine references, because that is something that I really want to learn about. That is really all I have to say, so thanks for the help. It seems like every person has something new to add so I look forward to hearing back from you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 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) 20:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For all of your tremendous work on Operation Varsity. Congratulations on finally attaining FA! Parsecboy (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Finit Coronat Opus. For your tenacious work on Operation Varsity, now a Featured Article. Cam (Chat) 06:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damnit ParsecBoy, you beat me to it. I've added my congratulations to the barnstar to avoid cramming up your userpage. Cam (Chat) 06:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UserPage Format

Do you mean like this?  

• Just copy & paste this code, add your own title, and put what you want in between.

As for the awards thing, I can probably rig that up for you in a nice 3-column later today (although I'll be gone after that until the 12th). Cam (Chat) 19:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well.......I used to have a nifty table that I copied from 5th Battalion Canadian Mounted Rifles and just inserted userboxes into instead of battle-names. That might work. I'll see if I can work the code into your page. Cam (Chat) 20:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there we go. Cam (Chat) 20:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Operation Tractable is in need of a prose copyedit (before going for FA later this summer). If you could do that over the next few days, that'd be great. Cam (Chat) 21:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, would you be interested in collaborating on Operation Husky at a later date? I have access to all of the Canadian resources for the operation, and I get the feeling you've got access to the Anglo-American sources. Cam (Chat) 03:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional rfa thank you message

		Thank you for the support!
		Skinny87, it is my honor to report that thanks in part to your support my third request for adminship passed (80/18/2). I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me, and I will endeovour to put my newly acquired mop and bucket to work for the community as a whole. Yours sincerly and respectfuly, TomStar81 (Talk) 02:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 11th Airborne Division A-Class

No 82nd Airborne Division (United States) yet? :( I will take a look. As for linking, all Wikipedia pages are linked to the same way. Just copy and paste whatever is above the line that separates the page's title with the rest of the page's content (i.e. look at any article; there's a line below the article's title.) Just copy that and link. Like this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/11th Airborne Division (United States). Cheers! Gary King (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea; let me know when you get to that though. I haven't touched history articles much in the past year or so. Gary King (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks, the Leopard 2E FAC was unusually long and SandyGeorgia was unusually strict (appears they got bored of seeing Spanish tanks), but it got through anyways. About a year and a half ago I took the Panzer I article through the GA process and then dropped it. Since I'm back in San Diego, I plan to unpack all my WWII books and rewrite the history section to make it shorter and focus more on the tank itself during those specific campaigns. I'll probably put it through the A-class process to see what people think, before putting it through the FAC. Plus, it's time I took this latter half of the month off to see if people will respond more positively during the FAC if I give them some time off tanks. JonCatalán (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11th AIrborne new matter

Hi Skinny --

Yours is a terrific contribution. I was a member of the Division in 1955-'57, so I think I can add a section about Operation Gyroscope, which was happening in 1956. I've started that section, if you don't mind. Pete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete142 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I'll have a look over & leave some comments (I can also help with copyediting if you require it). Cam (Chat) 04:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gyroscope

Skinny talked to me (on the 18th!! of July) on this wise:

"11th Airborne Division is going through an A-Class Review at the moment, which is where a group of editors decide whether to give the article the A-Class status, meaning it is a very well written and cited article. ... I was hoping that we could hold off writing Gyroscope for a few days."

I apologize for taking so long to reply. I didn't understand that the article was in its final draft, else I would have kept my hands off. If you haven't already, please do take whatever liberties you wish with the small material I added.

"Which sources will you be using to write the article piece, out of interest?"

I am still looking for sources. These are what I have so far:

1. http://www.history.army.mil/documents/gyroscope/gyro-fm.htm , Operation Gyroscope in the United States Army, Europe; Headquarters, United States Army, Europe, Historical Division; 6 September 1957. Paper describes the operation in macro detail.

2. Emails I've exchanged with folks who, like me, were 11th Abn troopers at Op Gyro time.

3. My own recollections (and decreasingly dependable they are) as a member of the 188 and 502 AIRs 1955-1957.

-- Pete

Thank you

Thank you very much indeed for your help with and commitment to Tag & Assess 2008. May I please trouble you to comment at the post-drive workshop? Your feedback will help us to improve the next drive. Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 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) 02:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 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) 00:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MilHist Coordinator election

Hi Skinny87, I've just removed your vote as nominations don't close until 14 September and voting will begin on 15 September. I hope that you don't mind, and thanks for your enthusiasm! Nick Dowling (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: operation luttich

Hello Skinny. Hope you had an excellent summer. I've responded to your comments on the ACR page of Operation Luttich. Cam (Chat) 22:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man. No problem. I've got a fairly busy school-workload (this week includes 2 history papers, 3 physics tests and labs, 4 chemistry tests and labs, and a math test), but I should be able to do at least a bit of work to help you out. Glad to see you're back on the 'pedia. All the best, Cam (Chat) 22:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tonga

You were killing me for a minute, Skinny :) I was condensing all of the refs, and had done them all in one go (instead of doing them one at a time), and I went to save it, and got an edit conflict with you. I incorporated the changes you had made, and then went to save again, and you had just rewritten the aftermath section, so we had another edit conflict. The third time was the charm though, but it turned out I had formatted the references slightly incorrectly (it needed a space between the [1]). They're fixed now, and should be all done, but if I've missed any, just let me know. Parsecboy (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, great work on Op Tonga. It's been a good week for Normandy-related articles. In the last three days alone, Operation Luttich passed its ACR (partially thanks to your suggestions and advice), Operation Epsom is at ACR, Operation Totalize passed its GAN, and Op Tonga is now up to an excellent and well-rounded B Class (GAN shouldn't be far off). Excellent work! Esteemed regards, Cam (Chat) 05:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS, drop me a line when you need a GA-Review done, I'll be happy to help. Cam (Chat) 05:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of fort Eben-Emael

Sure, I gladly help. So far my contribution to this article is more or less every beginning with the German preparation onwards. Please note that I will be offline for a few days so you will not see me contributing for a few days. MisterBee1966 (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

contact

Your work is good. I listed you as contact for airborne warfare. {{WPMILHIST Contact}} Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion will probably interest you. Do feel free to chip in and perhaps shape a future role:) All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I always get that link wrong. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist

thank you

		Milhist Coordinator elections
		Thank you very much for your much appreciated support in the recently concluded September 2008 Military History Wikiproject Coordinator Elections. I was thoroughly surprised to walk away with a position of Coordinator. Thank-you for your support, and I assure you that I will do my best to serve this spectacular project well. Esteemed Regards, Cam (Chat) 00:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Notre Dame de Lorrette Cemetary - Arras, France

Hey, sorry about taking so long. There's just a few date wikilink issues to resolve, at which point it should be good. all the best, Cam (Chat) 05:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 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) 23:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Airborne Warfare GT

Hey, no worries. I should have plenty of free time over the weekend (3 days off and not a physics lab in sight, there's a first!;). If you recall, Redmark & I did a joint-review of 13th, so that one should be up to standard. I will definitely take a look at the 17th AD over the weekend though. All the best, Cam (Chat) 23:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tractable FAC

Hey, I've expanded the lead, stubbed several of the red-links, and found a citation for the action at Falaise. Could you check back in to see whether the conditions have been met? Cam ^(Chat) 01:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never did say thanks.

Hey, I know this was a while back, but I never did properly thank you for the prose copyedit of Operation Tractable. In fact, during the recently (successfully) completed FAC, the prose didn't come up once as an issue.

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your down-right excellent copyediting of Operation Tractable, now a Featured Article. All the best, Cam ^(Chat) 06:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ah, technically you're correct (the best kind of correct). However, if you look at the talk-page of the article, you didn't want to directly copyedit it, and thus left dozens of suggestions for prose improvement, which amounts to pretty much the same thing. Cam ^(Chat) 17:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the GA review

I took care of most of it, except the comparative numbers. I don't think I have a number for how many tanks the Germans should have had at full strength, although perhaps I could find a number of tanks on the Eastern Front on an earlier date and compare. Let me check my sources. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will probably try to get Third Battle of Kharkov to FA next (I have been thinking of revisiting Panzer IV and getting the unreliable sources another user added filtered out and getting rid of unsupported information ... but it's going to be a headache). Unfortunately, the A-class review has stagnated, with two supports. If you'd be kind enough to take a look, I could use the extra commentary to get it going again. Thank you. Ah yes, Utah Beach. I probably will, since I only really have a small number of published sources on hand and an online official history I found. Again, thanks. JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just ordered the book, Utah Beach: The Amphibious Landing And Airborne Operations On D-Day, June 6, 1944, by Joseph Balkoski. So, this will probably be the best source I will have. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oooo, nice choice. I need to get that at some point, funds allowing. Be a good help for American airborne landings in Normandy. If you have time, I've set up another MILHIST Peer Review for 11th Airborne Division (United States) before I take it to FAC again, and any comments, especially on the prose, would be helpful. Skinny87 (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eben Emael

I'll get to it today, probably. I just got back from work and I don't have class tonight, so I should have time time! :) Thank you for your reviewing Third Kharkov. I'll take your advice and start to copyedit the Khafji article. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Albert Corey GAR

Hi mate, thanks for electing to review the article Ernest Albert Corey under the GA criteria. I have rectified the issues you have raised during the review, and replied to your comments on the talkpage. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, mate! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Peer Review for 11th Airborne Division

It should work now. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/11th Airborne Division (United States) is always the PR page, but with the move it redirected to the old one. I've deleted the redirection so it should work fine now. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, I listed Image:Western Europe March 1945.JPG at the Graphics lab workshop, so at some point they'll clean it up. (It'll probably take a while though, I'm still waiting on a map I listed there when Von der Tann was going through FAC.) Parsecboy (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the new version, it look pretty good. Parsecboy (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Wiki 1.0

I'm afraid I don't. When it gets done, I suspect. These exercises are huge undertakings and very difficult to keep to schedule with entirely volunteer input. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

I'll have to fail them. I really hate doing that because it was about little things to improve. But you're right it's overdue. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Walter Balfour Barttelot, 3rd Baronet‎

Thanks for rating Sir Walter Balfour Barttelot, 3rd Baronet‎, any chance of some feedback on why start and not B? David Underdown (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re copyedit request

I'd love to be able to help out, but I'm up to my eyeballs at the moment in current and pending copyedits :P If you're in no hurry I don't mind taking a look, but I can't guarantee when (it won't be soon though!). All the best, EyeSerene^talk 09:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Battles

These are examples of order of battles, even if they aren't for ground forces. Order of battle at the Battle of Tory Island and Order of battle at the Glorious First of June are both featured lists. JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the current length of the article. You could make a good article for the division's order of battle, and it would be long enough to warrant a brand new article. This could include both an order of battle when it was an airborne division and when it was a test air assault division. It doesn't have to be very long (generally ,15kB+). JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review of T28 Super Heavy Tank

I have done all that was asked to be done in regard to the references, and so I believe it is ready to be examined against the GA-Class criteria. TARTARUS ^talk 21:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. TARTARUS ^talk 20:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: 11AD

Okay, I'll make a start later. What, by the way, does "activated" mean? Is it the day it became fully operational? Or the day the CO arrived at his desk? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Now, that's a good question...a very good one...let me get back to you on that. Skinny87 (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, my sources just say it was activated on the 25th of February and don't seem to expand on what that means. Is that going to be a major problem, do you think? Skinny87 (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only to the extent that neither of us know what it means :)))) It's no problem though, I know just the person to ask. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that the ACW excitement has died down a bit, I've started the copyedit. I hope you don't mind but I've pruned the intro a bit, mostly for concision. Revert whatever you can't live with :)
• How do you want to handle titles? You've got "Maj. Gen" – MoS expects consistency so I guess it's points after both Maj. and Gen. Same applies to Lt. Gen. You okay with this?
• I don't know when you want to FAC this (you mentioned this week sometime) but I think it could do with general tightening up. It's very well-written but a bit longwinded in places (labours of love often are). Tony will pick that up.
• MoS stuff seems okay but the dates in the refs need de-linking. I'll fix that later.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I've got some interesting coord-overflow stuff for you if you're interested. Temporary, acting, unpaid. And probably unappreciated  :)) Is your offer still open? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll carry on with the CE. Once that's out of the way, I'll concentrate on coord stuff again :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar! Perhaps premature as you haven't seen how much of a mess I'm going make of it :) I'm a bit stalled on how to deal with Knollwood, to make it seems less like a complicated digression. I'll fiddle with it in a sandbox. Thanks again, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is that it doesn't really flow on from the earlier bits and the information jumps about in time sequence. This can be partly solved with a good link. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. By the way, do any of your sources say that the role of airborne forces was still under development in summer 1943? Presumably, this was the Allies jumping on the bandwagon after the 1941 Invasion of Crete? And still essentially experimental? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had another look at the FAC. That parallels some of the concerns I have. Once we've fixed themn, it should sail through. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't but (rightly or wrongly) it's the article's sub-text. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, it should really go into the lead as it sets the secene for about half the article. The other thing were the PI and GI regiments raised specially? Do we know anything about training? (Flanagan say anything?) Is there anything on this? The Brits, for instance, had trouble recruiting airborne troops as they wanted to keep it fairly hush-hush. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Good idea. I'm making good progress I think and hopefully will get the Formation / Knollwood section finished in draft this arvo in time for you to add too. I'll merge it back into the main article as soon as possible. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good though it needs a final run-through. I haven't got time to do this today but can tomorrow. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I'm booze cruising in France this afternoon to stock up for my fireworks/birthday at the weekend. I'll be back midnight-ish :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist coordinator

You have been mentioned here as a possible coopted Milhist coordinator. You may wish to comment :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review: Battle of Sarikamish

Hell there. You have nominated Battle of Sarikamish for a Good Article nomination. Having given the article an initial overview, I would suggest removing this nomination due to the large number of grammatical errors present throughout the article. I don't know if it was copied from another wikipedia article and translated, but it badly needs a heavy copy-edit and rewriting to make it presentable and understandable. There also appears to be a long-running edit war between several users editing the article, which is cause for failing the nomination. Skinny87 (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest. I tried to copy edit the article. I tried to simplify the sentences, fix the tenses, and order the events as much as possible. There should not be too many grammatical errors. But article needs a "review" (multiple eyes) to hunt them. For the edit war; if you read the discussion, the main argument is not related to the battle. It is regarding on a "quote" by the commander of the Army. Quote was after the event (the battle). The time, the place of the quote is not close to the event. The exact wording of the quote is in question for the last 100 years (with no resolution). I'm not against adding the quote to this article. However, these authors should resolve their problem somewhere else (different article). That issue is not part of the major story line. I believe the current content is good. A good article status can bring the article to the "A class military review." It will help in promoting involvement among other military project editors. Even if the article fails, the result will be a feedback to other editors. --FcSphere (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry, but I don't have time to hunt down and list all of the errors because the article is rife with them - literally every sentence from the sections I've read. I would suggest removing this nomination and instead putting this through a Peer Review and contact an english-speaking editor familiar with the subject. Skinny87 (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for this. You might want to check back in at the ANI thread as well. I've said a bit there. It's a pity the response you got didn't make it over to the ANI thread. Split discussions like that are a bit annoying. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Julian Howell GAN

Hi Skinny, thanks for reviewing George Julian Howell for me; I appreciate it. I have rectified the areas of concern you have raised during the review as best I can, and as such have left comments on the review page. Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, that doesn't sound cheeky to me, just fair (you have reviewed two articles for me now after all). I was actually thinking about reviewing the article, but my area of expertise lies in bios and not operations. In this respect, you might have to put up with me :) I might not get the review done now, but it will be done no later then tomorrow. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Khafji

Hey, could I ask a favor of you? There is a threat that the article Battle of Khafji will fail the ACR because I can't gather a third support (I only have two). Could you take a look at the A-class review and comment/support (the latter only if it really makes A-class standards)? Thank you for your time. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Pre GA Review

FYI-the comments you mentioned above were for an A-class article review and if I wanted to go onto FA. None of that prevents Battle of Marion from being reviewed. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^Drop me a line 14:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, feel free to review the U-5 sub article ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^Drop me a line 14:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. and the