Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Instructions

Requesting a review

To request the first A-Class review of an article:

1. Please double-check the MILHIST A-class criteria and ensure that the article meets most or all of the five (a good way of ensuring this is to put the article through a good article nomination or a peer review beforehand, although this is not mandatory).
2. If there has been a previous A-Class nomination of the article, before re-nominating the article the old nomination page must be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article/archive1 to make way for the new nomination page.
3. Add A-Class=current to the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (e.g. immediately after the class= or list= field).
4. From there, click on the "currently undergoing" link that appears in the template (below the "Additional information" section header). This will open a page pre-formatted for the discussion of the status of the article.
5. List your reason for nominating the article in the appropriate place, and save the page.
6. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of A-Class review requests below.
7. Refresh the article's talk page's cache by following these steps. (This is so that the article's talk page "knows" that the A-class review page has actually been created. It can also be accomplished in the 2010 wikitext editor by opening the page in edit mode and then clicking "save" without changing anything, i.e. making a "null edit". )
8. Consider reviewing another nominated article (or several) to help with any backlog (note: this is not mandatory, but the process does not work unless people are prepared to review. A good rule of thumb is that each nominator should try to review at least three other nominations as that is, in effect, what each nominator is asking for themselves. This should not be construed to imply QPQ).

Restrictions

1. An article may be nominated a second (or third, and so forth) time, either because it failed a prior nomination or because it was demoted and is now ready for re-appraisal. There is no limit on how quickly renominations of failed articles may be made; it is perfectly acceptable to renominate as soon as the outstanding objections from the previous nomination have been satisfied.
2. There are no formal limits to how many articles a single editor can nominate at any one time; however, editors are encouraged to be mindful not to overwhelm the system. A general rule of thumb is no more than three articles per nominator at one time, although it is not a hard-and-fast rule and editors should use their judgement in this regard.
3. An article may not be nominated for an A-Class review and be a Featured article candidate, undergoing a Peer Review, or have a Good article nomination at the same time.

Commenting

The Milhist A-Class standard is deliberately set high, very close to featured article quality. Reviewers should therefore satisfy themselves that the article meets all of the A-Class criteria before supporting a nomination. If needed, a FAQ page is available. As with featured articles, any objections must be "actionable"; that is, capable of rectification.

If you are intending to review an article but not yet ready to post your comments, it is suggested that you add a placeholder comment. This lets other editors know that a review is in progress. This could be done by creating a comment or header such as "Reviewing by Username" followed by your signature. This would be added below the last text on the review page. When you are ready to add comments to the review, strike out the placeholder comment and add your review. For instance, strike out "reviewing" and replace it with "comments" eg:

Comments Reviewing by Username

Add your comments after the heading you have created. Once comments have been addressed by the nominator you may choose to support or oppose the nomination's promotion to A-class by changing the heading:

Support / Oppose Comments reviewing by Username

If you wish to abstain from either decision, you may indicate that your comments have been addressed or not addressed. For instance:

Comments Reviewing by Username addressed / not addressed

This makes it easy for the nominator and closer to identify the status of your review. You may also wish to add a closing statement at the end of your comments. When a nominator addresses a comment, this can be marked as {{done}} or {{resolved}}, or in some other way. This makes it easy to keep track of progress, although it is not mandatory.

Requesting a review to be closed

A nominator may request the review be closed at any time if they wish to withdraw it. This can be done by listing the review at ACRs for closure, or by pinging an uninvolved co-ord. For a review to be closed successfully, however, please ensure that it has been open a minimum of five days, that all reviewers have finalised their reviews and that the review has a minimum of at least three supports, a source review and an image review. The source review should focus on whether the sources used in the article are reliable and of high quality, and in the case of a first-time nominator, spot-checking should also be conducted to confirm that the citations support the content. Once you believe you have addressed any review comments, you may need to contact some of the reviewers to confirm if you have satisfied their concerns.

After A-Class

You may wish to consider taking your article to featured article candidates for review. Before doing so, make sure you have addressed any suggestions that might have been made during the A-class review, that were not considered mandatory for promotion to A-class. It can pay to ask the A-class reviewers to help prepare your article, or you may consider sending it to peer review or to the Guild of Copy Editors for a final copy edit.

Demotion

If an editor feels that any current A-class article no longer meet the standards and may thus need to be considered for demotion (i.e. it needs a re-appraisal) please leave a message for the project coordinators, who will be happy to help.

A-Class review/reappraisal closure instructions for coordinators
	A-Class review		A-Class reappraisal
Closure takes place after minimum of five days	Pass • at least 3 comprehensive supports and • no outstanding criteria-based objections	Fail • less than 3 comprehensive supports or • outstanding criteria-based objections or • no consensus	Keep • clear consensus to keep or • no consensus	Demote • clear consensus to demote
{{WPMILHIST}} on article talk page	• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=pass	• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=fail	• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=kept	• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=demoted • Reassess article and record new class
The MilHistBot will take care of the details. For detailed advice and manual procedure instructions see the full Academy course.

Current reviews

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

US Army Small Ships Section

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

US Army Small Ships Section (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. It is about adventurers who went to war in Papua in 1942 in small ships manned mainly by Australians but part of US Army Transport Service. The small ships delivered critical supplies over uncharted waters patrolled by Japanese aircraft, surface ships and submarines. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:31, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Comments by A.Cython

I am not familiar with the locale and era, so this review is from a casual reader mostly on prose.

• sand bars → sandbars (though I do not known Australian)
• The Small Ships Section headquarters had five branches: personnel; supply; planning and development; construction and refitting; and maintenance and repair Why so many semicolons? Commas will do.
• by the board, and changed remove comma
• This work eased the task of the small ships, who also made their own charts. Why "who"; should it not be which?
• Supplies were brought to Milne Bay in larger ships and then transferred to the small ships to be brought to Pongani or beyond. → Supplies arrived at Milne Bay on larger ships and were transferred to the smaller ships for transport to Pongani or beyond.
• in the dark, and remove comma
• she was able to be refloated
• managed to unload → unloaded
• This was not counting vehicles → This did not include vehicles
• officers and official I assume you mean here officials (plural)
• from 1895 and new comma before "and"
• They were from an affluent yachting family, and their acquaintance with President Franklin D. Roosevelt may have played a role in the mission's ultimate authorisation under the codename "Mission X" I am a bit uncomfortable with the part about "may have played a role" as it appears speculative. I do not have access to the book, but is it possible to phrase Roosevelt's involvement a bit more clearly? A.Cython(talk) 01:29, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Ovonramwen

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Vanderwaalforces (talk)

Ovonramwen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it goes without saying (at least, after reading) that Ovonramwen’s rule really shaped the history of the Kingdom of Benin, a kingdom that lasted several centuries. I’m looking forward to later nominating this at FAC but I’m sure the A-class criteria is met, so I can’t thank you enough for taking a look at this and providing feedback already. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2026 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Taginae

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): A.Cython (talk)

Battle of Taginae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it was one of the decisive battles that contributed to the end of the Gothic War (535–554) and leading to the death of Gothic King Totila, who was able to equalize even the infamous general Belisarius. The battle has also sparked a debate in Roman military history field over whether it was first medieval "pike and bow" battle centuries before Battle of Crécy or whether it was part of standard Roman military tactics. Irrespective of this, the battle is often picked by historians to discuss late Roman military tactics, e.g., John Haldon picks this battle (and two more) in his book out of all battles during Justinian's reign. The article passed GA last May by Noleander and DYK recently. I am looking forward to your comments to elevate it to A-class and hopefully to FA. Thank you in advance. A.Cython(talk) 17:34, 18 July 2026 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Andrew Hastie

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): TarnishedPath (talk)

Andrew Hastie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the criteria. The article has recently been brought to WP:GA status by myself. Hastie is a veteran of the war in Afghanistan where he was a captain in Australia's SASR. He is currently a promenant politician in Australia and is a potential future leader of the Australian Liberal Party. Any and all comments welcome! Thanks TarnishedPath^talk 00:04, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi all,

Just a note to let everyone, who may be reviewing this, know that I'm going to be travelling for a month from Sunday. I'll have a laptop with me, so hopefully I'll be able to address any feedback in that time; howver, just for everyone to be aware that my replies may be delayed. Curtesy pings @Hawkeye7 and @Nick-D. TarnishedPath^talk 04:21, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

Disclaimer: Although we were both at ADFA at the same time, I don't recall ever meeting him.

• What is OpenAustralia?

I've added a note about what it is. TarnishedPath^talk 10:18, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Shadow Minister for Defence Industry & Defence Personnel" Change the ampersand to "and"

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 10:22, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Royal Military College, Duntroon in 2006" Comma after "Duntroon"

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 10:24, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• In the infobox, his wife's maiden name is generally more useful

It's not in any of the sources used to reference her relationship with Andrew and I've not been able to find it by performing any searches. TarnishedPath^talk 09:49, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Early life and education

• We need to repeat his full name and birth date here; otherwise it is unreferenced.
• Link "primary school", as this will not be understood by an international readership
• "Hastie's maternal grandfather Reginald, a war veteran" Do we know of which war"
• "His father Peter" Commas around "Peter"
• "church pastor" Is there another kind? And link pastor
• Link Presbyterian church
• Define UNSW on first use (although it is fairly obvious)
• Link Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918.
• Use "he" instead of "Hastie" after first use in the third paragraph.

Done all. With the maternal grandfather bit. I've removed mention of Reginald (by name) or of them being a war veteran as it is not supported by the source. This article has had issues with connected contributors in the past and I suspect that bit was original research. I have however, added detail about his paternal grandfather being a Flight Lieutenant who served in the Pacific War. With UNSW, I've replaced it with the full name and have not defined the acronym as it is only used once in the whole article. TarnishedPath^talk 11:10, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Scratch what I wrote about UNSW. It is used more than once. I've defined it. TarnishedPath^talk 11:12, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Military career

• I would say "posted to" instead of "posted with"; the latter would imply a temporary assignment
• Not seeing the relevance of fn 11. Doesn't seem to cover the text.

Done the above two. No idea what fn 11 was about. TarnishedPath^talk 11:20, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Political career

• Link Division of Canning

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 11:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Link Liberal Party of Australia, Australian Labor Party.

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 11:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Ps, I linked the Liberal Party of Australia in the lead in case you're wondering. TarnishedPath^talk 11:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Do we know when he joined the party?

2013. See Special:Diff/1365789192 where I move a sentence from the military career section and add a bit more. Being up front here, one of the sources used is Herald Sun, which I have removed from numerous articles as I consider it to be not reliable; however, this particular Herald Sun article is an interview with Hastie and so I think it passes WP:ABOUTSELF. TarnishedPath^talk 12:12, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• "media criticism about his family's religious beliefs" Can you elaborate on whet these were? And are we talking about his father or himself?

I've updated the wording as the source doesn't state that he faced any criticism. You're correct, that it's about his father and the media were questioning whether Hastie was a creationist like his father. TarnishedPath^talk 10:01, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• "the government of Malcolm Turnbull who had" Comma after "Turnbull"

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 10:04, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• "This moved the seat from "marginal" to "fairly safe" according to the Australian Electoral Commission." Actually, the reference says it moved from "safe" to "fairly safe".

Updated. TarnishedPath^talk 10:05, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• " Scott Morrison was subsequently elected leader of the Liberal Party, thus becoming Prime Minister of Australia as leader of the majority party in the House of Representatives." Reference required here.

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 10:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Link Minister for Defence (Australia)#List of assistant ministers for defence

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 10:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Use "he" instead of "Hastie" after first use in the first paragraph of "Opposition (2022–present)"

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 10:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Link Anthony Albanese

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 10:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Link nuclear power in Australia. You could consider a few words to put this in context.

Done and added a bit of context. TarnishedPath^talk 10:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• "conservative MP Angus Taylor" Do we really need " conservative MP"? It is a false title.

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 10:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• "this time under Taylor" Seems redundant to me.

Removed. TarnishedPath^talk 10:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• "the position of Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, a position which had become available" I would say, "had been re-created"

Done. TarnishedPath^talk 10:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Views

• Use "he" instead of "Hastie" after first use in the first "China" paragraph.
• Link ABC News (Australia)
• Labor should have been linked earlier
• Link Same-sex marriage in Australia and Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017
• Nothing about his religious views?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Hawkeye7, thankyou for time undertaking this review. I'll try and address some of your points tonight. TarnishedPath^talk 23:34, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I've just addressed all of these points except his religious views. I'll address that later. There is some sourcing on it. Ps, Same-sex marriage in Australia was already linked on the words "same-sex marriage" in the marriage equality section. Also the linking of Labor was addressed above, so I've removed the link there. TarnishedPath^talk 12:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Ps, I'll probably leave the adding content on religious views to the end once I've addressed all of the above. Remind me if I forget to come back to it. TarnishedPath^talk 09:53, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I've just moved a sentence that was near the top of the views section into a subsection about Christianity and marriage equality (there's obviously a bit of cross-over), taking the material that was already in a subsection on marriage equality. I've also added a bit more. @Hawkeye7, please have a look and let me know if you'd like any further changes. Ps, I think I've also addressed all of the above, so please have a look when you have time and let me know what other suggestions you may have. TarnishedPath^talk 08:29, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

The outlook of politicians like Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison were defined by their religious beliefs. Yet here we have someone ostensibly defined by deep faith but apparently having no preferred protestant denomination. (In the Army, though, it is normal for separate church services to be held for protestants and Catholics.) I have linked a couple of religious terms. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll have a look and see what the sourcing says about their denomination later after work. I suspect that it is either Prysbertarian of Baptist, but I'll have a look. TarnishedPath^talk 22:15, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I think he declared himself to be Anglican. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:44, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, you were very much correct. He has said that he's an Anglican. I've added that and removed original research which stated that he's been a part of various revivalist churches after being an atheist. TarnishedPath^talk 10:41, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, were there any further changes you thought should be made to the article? TarnishedPath^talk 06:18, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

No, I'll just support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:26, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Nick-D - support

I'd like to offer the following comments:

• At the outset, I'd note that this article has long been infected by people who appear to have an undisclosed conflict of interest of some kind with Hastie or his political party. I'm not sure that this has been sufficiently exorcised from the article, though the work to improve it has been impressive.
• "the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) of the University of New South Wales (UNSW)" - I'm not sure that this is the correct formulation. ADFA is its own thing, with the UNSW running the academic side and awarding degrees.

Updated wording to state that he studied through the University of New South Wales at the Australian Defence Force Academy. TarnishedPath^talk 11:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• "with a bachelor's degree in history, politics, and philosophy" - this doesn't seem correct. His APH biography says that he has a bachelor of arts (hons).

Sources state that he did a Bachelor of Arts (Hons) in History and Philosophy. Updated as such. Ps, I also found some stuff I couldn't verify, particularly around dates. I've removed it. TarnishedPath^talk 11:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• "who has served as the deputy leader of the Opposition" - this isn't correct. Jane Hume is the Deputy Leader - Hastie has the position of "Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives".

Fixed. TarnishedPath^talk 13:22, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• What's the relevance of Hastie's grandad being in the RAAF? The great majority of men in Australia served in the military in some form during the war.

I've added some context about Hastie stating that his grandad's actions during the war being an influence on his values. TarnishedPath^talk 09:50, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• "his final thesis examined Charles Bean's Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918" - can more detail be provided on the topic here?

@Nick-D, Nothing more in-depth from either from The Herald Sun piece (which supports the current material) or The Australian. Those two sources are probably the most in-depth about Hastie. Web searches I performed didn't find anything about his thesis; however, I did find that in his speeches it has been no uncommon for him to make references to Bean, that doesn't help with this though. TarnishedPath^talk 11:19, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Hastie participated in 45 parliamentary debates in 2019—above the parliamentary average—with most contributions relating to national security matters" - I can't see this in the source

This is probably more original research inserted by prior editors with a COI. There's a chance that the links on that OpenAustralia page have material which can be interpretated as as supporting the claim, but that would still stand a good chance of being OR. I've removed it. TarnishedPath^talk 11:23, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

• The para starting with 'Hastie opposed dredging' reads like puffery. This is routine types of stuff for MPs.

• I think this should be kept. A common criticism of articles on MPs is failing to mention the routine stuff. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'd suggest in that instance that the material also note unsuccessful advocacy by Hastie. This kind of material is often 'MP called for X', which is part of their job, with no information on the result. As it's quite common for MPs to fail to achieve some of the stuff they call for (as is not unreasonable given that there are often apolitical processes that decide where funding will go, what projects are greenlighted, etc), the material should be balanced. An obvious example is that Anthony Albanese has spent much of his career as a federal MP disputing the flightpaths for Sydney Airport, which is a huge issue for his electorate, with only mixed success: it obviously hasn't greatly held him back as a local MP or in leadership roles. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'll see what I can do here when I work though this some more tonight. TarnishedPath^talk 00:36, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• There is no detail on what Hastie did as the Assistant Minister for Defence.

See Special:Diff/1370264368. I've added some detail on him giving a speech to troops that they were in the business of killing. Besides that all I could really find is routine stuff like him opening health centres are different barracks. See https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/joint-capabilities/9778-new-act-health-centre-to-serve-our-adf-members and https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/joint-capabilities/9823-hastie-opens-new-health-centre-at-campbell-barracks for examples and I'm not 100% sure on the reliability of defenceconnect.com.au. Let me know if you think stuff like that is worthwhile giving some detail on. TarnishedPath^talk 03:09, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Hastie was one of the few Liberals in a metropolitan seat to record a swing in his favour, and the only Liberal from a Perth-based seat. " - he actually got the smallest swing of the (few) sitting Liberal MPs in WA. He is also the only Liberal MP representing any of the seats in Perth, with the ALP holding the rest.

Updated to The election saw heavy losses for the Liberals in metropolitan Australia. Hastie was one of few metropolitan-adjacent Liberals nationally to record a swing in his favour at the election, on both a primary and two-party basis.[37] Following the Liberal Party's loss in the seat of Bullwinkel to Labor's Trish Cook, Hastie became the only Liberal MP representing a metropolitan Perth seat.

The Hamish Hastie (no relation) source states "Hastie was one of the few metropolitan-adjacent Liberals in the country to record a swing towards him on both a primary and two-party basis, at 1.7 per cent and 4.6 per cent, respectively." It isn't comparing him to the other WA Libs. I've also added sourcing to state that given the Libs lost Bullwinkel, Hastie became the only metropolitan WA Lib. TarnishedPath^talk 04:06, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• The article doesn't cover Peter Dutton's very strong criticisms of Hastie's performance as the Shadow Defence Minister. From memory, Niki Savva reached a similar conclusion in her book Earthquake.

I've added the following:

"In submissions to the Liberal Party's post-election review, Dutton criticised Hastie's performance as Shadow Defence Minister. According to reporting on the submissions, Dutton said that Hastie had gone "on strike" and had failed to prepare a detailed costing for the Coalition's proposed increase in defence spending. Dutton stated that as consequence, the coalitions defence policy had been release late in the campaign. Dutton also said that Hastie had been reluctant to criticise the Albanese government's defence record in the media. Hastie rejected the criticism, saying that Dutton and his office were responsible for the late release of the Coalition's defence policy."

TarnishedPath^talk 10:04, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• The 'China' section seems too long - can his views be summarised rather than presented in a blow by blow way?

Please see Special:Diff/1370255486, where I've trimmed out material about Chau Chak Wing, Huawei and Wang Liqiang. I think this was more the stuff where it becomes "blow by blow". Let me know if you think I've chopped too much. TarnishedPath^talk 01:50, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• "On 4 June 2020, the 31st anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, Hastie joined a group of nineteen other politicians from eight countries and the European Parliament to form the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China." - not referenced

I've removed this. @Pangalau had added a reference for this after your comment here. However, the source was the Central Tibetan Administration, which has been previously discussed at WP:RSN, with there appearing to be no consensus on its reliability. The usage was also challenged at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Andrew Hastie (nom). TarnishedPath^talk 10:29, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• The article doesn't currently cover Hastie's involvement in legal actions relating to Ben Roberts-Smith and alleged war crimes more generally.

I've added a section at Andrew Hastie#Ben Roberts-Smith war crimes allegations. I wasn't sure if this should be its own section or if it should be a subsection of something else, but I couldn't really think of where it cleanly fit. Let me know if you'd like more detail. TarnishedPath^talk 11:27, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• The 'views' section would benefit from a sub-section on his views on national security, which are generally described as hawkish. Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Nick-D, cheers for your feedback and I'll try and see what I can do over the coming week. Re: the page having been previously infected by persons with undisclosed COIs, I think you're entirely correct. During the PR, GA and this process, I've exercised a bit of material that was obvious WP:OR, which I imagine landed in the article from those persons. I'm not sure if it has all been exorcised as yet, but it's getting there. TarnishedPath^talk 08:14, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Nick-D, I think I've gone through and addressed all of the above, with the exception of your last dot point. The issue I'm seeing with the last dot point is that such a section, if too large would duplicate material from elsewhere (Particularly the China section, which I've already reduced in size). I'm thinking it may be possible to make a sub-section on national security and then to make the China sub-section a sub-section of the national security sub-section. In the way I'm thinking I'd probably only write a paragraph between the national security and China sub-section headings. Thoughts? TarnishedPath^talk 10:28, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for my slow response - I was out of town. Those changes look good, and I'm happy to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Nick-D cheers, I've been in China for a week anyway so no drama with any delays. TarnishedPath^talk 08:41, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Source review – pass

@TarnishedPath: There are 102 citations, using the mixed reference system. While I am not aware of policy dictating a preference on organizing the citations, one in which the source information is segregated from the main text is preferable because it helps with editing and spotting reference errors; more experienced editors can weight in on this one, but speaking from personal experience it is worth the effort especially for larger articles (this is comment is not part of the review).

I reviewed this version

• #2a Y it mentions that he was born in Wangaratta in 1982, but it does not provide date of birth
  • #3 Y it provides the date of birth
• #2a Y it mentions that he attended Scots College since he was 5
• #7 N "Old Boy News": I do not think this is a relevant source, it reads more like WP:PROMO; I suggest to remove it

Removed. TarnishedPath^talk 07:08, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• #2e Y it mentions that he joined the Liberal Party in 2013
• #6c Y the source provides Charles Bean’s history of the Anzacs
• #17 Y
• #28 ? Maybe not accessible but it needs an archive url and date

@A.Cython: we can't add a archive for this one. I've not been able to find it on ProQuest and Internet Archive doesn't work on it. It is available through archive.today; however, that is now deprecated/blacklisted and it won't let me provide you with a link here. Please let me know if you can't find it and want me to email you the link. TarnishedPath^talk 07:21, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• #30 Y contains the quote
• #33 Y confirmed the quotes
• #37a Y note that for quotes it is better to have a citation at the end of the statement.

I've added the citation at the end of the quoted statement that was in the middle of the paragraph. TarnishedPath^talk 07:28, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• #43 Y contains the quote
• #53 Y contains the info about noone is above the law
• #56 Y describes Andrew as the leader of the right wing of the Liberal Party
• #88 Y double check the urls (they appear mixed up and the archived version does not work)

I've updated the archive url. It worked for me, but had a prior revision of the article which displayed differently, so I updated it anyway. Let me know if you have any further issue. TarnishedPath^talk 07:35, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• #102 Y contains the information that he spends time with his family at Mandurah A.Cython(talk) 22:22, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

  @A.Cython, cheers for your time undertaking that source review. I've addressed all of your points above that needed addressing. Please let me know if there is anything else you would like addressed. TarnishedPath^talk 07:36, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  @TarnishedPath: Thanks. Good luck at FAC. A.Cython(talk) 15:54, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  @A.Cython thankyou. TarnishedPath^talk 15:58, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Image review - pass

As I noted above, this article has historically been affected by edits and photos contributed by people who may have a conflict of interest with Andrew Hastie. There are several accounts, including someone who ran multiple sockpuppet accounts, that have uploaded photos that are highly suggestive that they are associated with Hastie. The choice of images used is OK given these constraints, so I'm happy to pass this review.

• File:A Hastie 2023 (cropped).jpg - OK (probable PR photo though)
• File:Andrew Hastie-2009.jpg - OK
• File:Andrew Hastie in panel discussion on the idea of a liberal democracy, ARC Forum 2023, 30 October 2023 (cropped).jpg - OK, but a PR photo uploaded by a sockpuppet account
• File:Andrew Hastie MP, Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security with Deputy Chair Anthony Byrne MP in February 2020 photo taken by D Birch.jpg - OK (probable PR photo though) Nick-D (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Simón Bolívar

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Wikipedian12512 (talk)

Simón Bolívar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... It passed a GA already, and I checked it through the criteria. Thanks! _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 22:18, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Comments by A.Cython

This is an interesting article and I did not know much about it, so my comments would be on prose and MoS.

• South American republics, and distanced from them because → South American republics and distanced himself from them because (remove comma and add "himself")
• in popular culture remove "in"
• and in October boarded add commas before "in" and after "October"
• Beginning in November 1811, Royalist forces began pushing back the Republicans → "In November 1811, Royalist forces began pushing the Republicans back from the north and east."
• outlining what he believed to be the causes of the Venezuelan republic's defeat and his political program. → outlining the causes of the Venezuelan Republic's defeat and his political program.
• Bolívar was made the → Bolívar became
• powerbase → power base
• isolated, and disillusioned remove comma
• Peru the Colombian add comma after "Peru"
• Bolívar arrived, however, and he I do not follow... either remove "however" or the "and"
• Over 1829, → In 1829,
• its cathedral → the cathedral or the city's cathedral
• for abolishment of slavery → for the abolition of slavery
• Latin America, to remove comma
• in overthrowing monarchy → of overthrowing the monarchies
• parties respectively. add comma after "parties"
• "It was the pardo Piar who needed to be reined in... he had grown ever more stubborn and unmanageable, ignoring Bolívar's appeals and instructions" [406] "Division was unacceptable. Race, though it had plagued the Americas through three hundred years of difficult history, was no longer a justifiable reason for discord." [406] I think this is a bit WP:QUOTEFARM, particularly in the frequent use of quotes in the rest of the article.
• Birthplace of Simon Bolivar in Caracas. remove "."
• had limits[390]. → had limits.[390]
  • December 1825[366].
  • the Liberator[353].
• in September.[386]. the last "." has to go A.Cython(talk) 21:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

2020 Salvadoran political crisis

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): PizzaKing13 (talk)

2020 Salvadoran political crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another Salvadoran (self) coup (debated)! I got this to GA in 2021. I probably considered it to be good back then but I didn't like it anymore so I completely rewrote it. This is different from my other A-class nominations since this one is more recent and relies more on news sources rather than journals or books. IIRC this is fine for A-class as long as the news sources are reliable. TLDR about this event: Bukele wanted a loan for new police equipment → the legislature said no → Bukele sent soldiers into the legislature during a meeting he convoked → legislature (shockingly) did not like that → basically nothing happened afterwards other than the legislature saying it wasn't nice of Bukele to do that. While being largely a civil conflict, I figured that it fell under MILHIST's scope due to the prominent role the military played in it. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 01:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Siege of Ariminum (538)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): A.Cython (talk)

Siege of Ariminum (538) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a unique siege during Justinian's Gothic War (535–552). Belisarius broke the siege of a numerically superior force without a fight to save his commander, who disobeyed orders. The siege is also significant because it has the seeds of Byzantine command's divisions that shaped the course of the Gothic War. The article was brought to GA in January (+DYK in February). Since then, under the mentoring advice of Gog the Mild (co-nominator), I included a section on "Primary sources" and expanded "Background" and "Scholarly assessment" sections along with other improvements. I would be most grateful for your input before submitting it to FAC. Note that I want to bring other Gothic War articles to FAC so your input would also help these articles as well. Thank you in advance for your input! A.Cython(talk) 01:30, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Support by Dumelow

I don't have a great deal of knowledge about pre-Mediaeval history so please take this as a layman's view on the text - Dumelow (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Procopius of Caesarea is the major Greek historian of Late Antiquity"

Do you mean Greek language or Greek nationality, a link would clarify

Our article doesn't capitalise "Late Antiquity"

• My understanding is that the authors emphasize the Greek aspect (language and origins) to differentiate from the Latin-speaking Romans. At the time both the Latin- and Greek-speaking citizens of the empire were considered Roman. The previous century is also considered the transition from Roman (Latin-speaking+pagan) to Byzantine (christian+Greek language). The character of the latter has its origins in 330 but only at around 500 the Byzantine character became dominant. I provide some quotes for context:
  • Bury p. 419 That there is almost as much to tell about thirty years of the sixth as there is about the whole of the fifth century, is due partly to Justinian's activity as a legislator, but chiefly to the pen Procopius. It was one of the of Justinian's glories age to have a writer who must be accounted the most produced excellent Greek historian since Polybius.
  • Cameron p. 2 He is the major Greek historian of Late Antiquity, perhaps even of Byzantium as a whole, and the proper understanding of his works is crucial to many issues, not least that of the transition from the ancient to the medieval world.

• "In Books V–VIII of the Wars, Procopius"

I would use History of the Wars which is how you refer to it in the bibliography

You only list books V through VII in the bibliography, does book VIII not have much to say? In any case I feel it should be in further reading.

•  Done changed to History of the Wars. The book VIII talks about the events after Belisarius captured Ravenna, i.e., rise of the Goths with Totila until the end of the war. I also added the last book in further reading.

• "These advantages placed him in a unique position to reconstruct the wars in the East, Africa, and Italy"

Is it possible to be more specific than "the East" as the location could mean something different to different readers.

•  Done changed it to Middle East

• "His view of Justinian ranges from enthusiasm and optimism in the first part of the Wars to open hostility in the Secret History"

You haven't introduced the Secret History and it is not mentioned in the bibliography, if not cited from diretcly to it should be in Further reading, at least I think. From the sounds of thinhs it is a later work. Do we know the dates when Procopius wrote each one?

•  Done rewrote it
• Comment: The last book of the History of the Wars was published in 553. The Secret History was probably finished in 551 (according to Bury and others), but it was not published. It was intended to be published right after the death of the emperor, but the emperor outlived Procopius and so it was forgotten in the library. It was discovered centuries later.

• "Even in the Wars, there is a transition at the point when Belisarius left Italy in mid-summer 540 AD, presumably due to Belisarius's unbroken loyalty to Justinian, followed by the resurgence Gothic resistance led by charismatic Totila, who became the protagonist and a tragic hero in Procopius's narrative in the latter part of the Gothic War."

I found this hard to follow and it might benefit from splitting. I think you need "resurgent" rather than "resurgence" here

•  Done

• "While Theodoric asked the then Byzantine Emperor Zeno permission to wear the royal regalia"

Are we talking Roman Imperial regalia here or something else?

•  Done I meant Roman

• "the Ostrogothic kingdom was the strongest barbarian nation occupying lands of the Western Roman Empire."

I would link barbarian for context

I think this should be "former Western Roman Empire"?

•  Done

• "Her reliance on Byzantine advisers and her son's Byzantine education and the assassination of her political opponents to maintain her position as regent until her son came of age,[16] however, alienated segments of the Gothic nobility."

I found this a bit long and with too many "and"s

•  Done

• "Her son died in 534, prompting the opposition to bring up the succession question"

I found this a little bit passive, can it be written more directly? Perhaps it could be combined with the first part of hte following sentence.

 Done rewrote it

• "Soon after Amalasuntha was deposed and later murdered by Theodahad in 535, Justinian considered this as a casus belli justification to intervene militarily in Italian Peninsula."

Missing "the" before "Italian Peninsula"

•  Done

• "The Goths failed to counter the Byzantine offences, while at the same time, Theodahad was in secret negotiations with Justinian"

Presumably this should be "offensives"?

•  Done

Read down to "Prelude" so far, will continue when I can - Dumelow (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• You are inconsistent in capitalising "Siege" in "Siege of Rome" and "Siege of Arminum", using both forms for both phrases

•  Done Fixed

• John (nephew of Vitalian) should be linked at first mention in the main text, he is only linked in the lead and infobox at the moment

•  Done added

• You use Vitalianus but our article is at Vitalian (consul), consider if this is the more common name? Likewise with Martinus who is at Martin (magister militum per Armeniam)
  • Comment: The literature is kind of divided between the two. For example, Bury (in original publication in 1928) uses Vitalian and Martin, but Ilkka Syvänne (2021) uses Martinus and Vitalianus.

• "Belisarius, anticipating that the Goths would attempt to besiege Ariminum, sent infantry forces to replace John and his cavalry unit, ordering John along the Via Flaminia road with a thousand horsemen to arrive in Ariminum before the retreating Goths did"

I was confused by this sentence. I thought John was already in Ariminum? Did he and his cavalry move to join Belisarius before then returning with (more?) cavalry? The next sentence seems to indicate he was ordered away from Ariminum.

•  Done rewrote, Belisarius was in Rome and John at Ariminum. He send a group (with horses) to quickly reach Ariminum give the orders to John. This was possible because the Gothic army was moving much more slowly and trying to avoid Byzantine forts.

• "In response, Vitiges had the trench filled with faggots before moving the siege over it."

Missing "tower" after "siege"

•  Done added

• "The weight of the tower caused it to sink slightly into the trench as the faggots were crushed and the earthwork, made of the dirt out of the trench, which was built behind it, stopped the advance entirely"

Consider "spoil" as a shorthand here and consider mentioning the earthwork earlier to simplify this sentence

•  Done broke the sentence into two

• "Belisarius, after securing the surrounding area of Rome, took his main army and marched north in late June."

I would switch "surrounding" and "area" here, ie. "the area surrounding Rome"

•  Done per your suggestion

• "along with 7,000-strong reinforcements from Constantinople"

I don't think you need "-strong" here

•  Done removed

• "Later in the summer of 538, the Goths lifted their siege of Ariminum and moved to Ravenna. Belisarius and his army entered Ariminum around noon."

Strange that we know the time but not the date. I assume this is as per Procopius?

• Most of the dates are given by secondary sources not from Procopius. The "noon" timing is coming from Procopius.
• source And Belisarius with his whole army arrived at midday.

Read down to Aftermath section now

@Dumelow: I was on transit early July somehow I missed the notification that you provided comments. Thank you for the review. Please let me know if I adequately addressed your comments or I need to revisit something. A.Cython(talk) 05:56, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I have likewise had a busy couple of weeks. Final comments below:

• No need to apologize, it is me who is thankful for investing your time in helping me to elevate this article.

• "In 539, Belisarius proceeded to secure strongholds in the surrounding region of Ravenna."

This reads better to me as "the region surrounding Ravenna"

•  Done

• "The stratagem spooked Justinian"

From the context I have presumed he was wary that Belisarius had ambitions for the Western Empire, but might be worth making it clear what he was worried about

• Comment: We have no evidence that Belisarius had such ambitions, at least according to the story written by Procopius. Even when he had the chance to wear the purple when the Goths offered to him the crown of the Western Roman Empire in 540, he used their offer to capture the capital in the name of Justinian. It was Justinian's fear of a successful general because this was the Roman tradition for the succession of power. Opponents of Belisarius used this fear of Justinian for their own advancement, which is why Belisarius was recalled to Constantinople a couple of times to clear his name. The later stages of the war were completed by Narses, who was the chamberlain of the emperor and an eunuch (no royal ambitions), effectively solving the "popular general" problem by having a civil servant of no ambition for the throne to lead the imperial armies.
•  Done I provided a bit more context

• "The general's departure was also needed on the eastern front against the Persians in the upcoming Lazic War (541–562).[55] However, the premature departure of Belisarius and the failure of Justinian in appointing a sole commander-in-chief in Byzantine forces in Italy reignited the Gothic resistance and prolonged the Gothic War by more than a decade"

I would consider rewording this slightly as "The general's departure from Italy had been required so he could serve on the eastern front against the Persians in the upcoming Lazic War (541–562).[55] However, Belisarius's departure and the failure of Justinian to appoint a sole commander-in-chief of Byzantine forces in Italy reignited the Gothic resistance and prolonged the Gothic War by more than a decade"

•  Done per your suggestion

• I would add a sentence after this to indicate how the war ended and who was victorious
  •  Done expanded the sentence, it was a stalemate or indecisive.
• "Historians argued that Belisarius's actions during the Siege of Ariminum ... Specifically, they praise his ability as a commander"

I think you may fall foul of MOS:AWW here if you do not name the historians

•  Done

• "Historian J. B. Bury said"

Consistency. You name him as "John Bury" elsewhere. It would also be worth giving a date for Bury's opinion, he is not the most modern of the sources and his writing will well pre-date the 1958 date of the publication you cite.

• True, I am using a 1958 edition (there more modern ones) but the original is from 1923.
•  Done Changed the name to be consistent. I added the original year of publication to the citation + mentioned in the main body

• "Historian Ilkka Syvänne placed the break of the Siege of Ariminum as a prime example of Sun Tsu's principle of "Subjugating the enemy without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence."

I would consider rewording this: "Historian Ilkka Syvänne considers the breaking of the Siege of Ariminum to be a prime example of Sun Tsu's principle that "subjugating the enemy without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence.""

•  Done

• In the lead "In early 538 and during the Siege of Rome (537–538), the besieged Byzantine General Belisarius sent John the Sanguinary to raid Picenum region."

Would be better with "the" before "Picenum"

•  Done added

• "Belisarius wanted to avoid direct battle engagement because the Goths outnumbered the Byzantine forces."

I would go with "...wanted to avoid a direct engagement because..."

•  Done

• "moved to besiege Ariminum in March 538"

The main text doesn't give any dates for the start of the siege, the infobox says "late spring" which would be around May

•  Done Most sources that I knew when I wrote this did not include an exact date. It had to be after mid-March but before June, when Belisarius left Rome to meet Narses. Anyhow I made another search in the library and found one source that states the date, April. So I replaced the date in the infobox and it is mentioned in the main body along with a citation.

• I wasn't sure why notes b and c were separate as both discuss the size of the Gothic army, can they be combined into one note that is called up twice?
  •  Done Merged

That's everything from me, apologies for time taken to complete this, have been a bit busy offline - Dumelow (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Dumelow No apologies needed, we all have real life obligations. Thank you for your thorough constructive review, I really do appreciate this. I believe I have addressed your comments. If I missed something or I need to revisit something, please let me know. Again thank you. A.Cython(talk) 03:20, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Dumelow Let me know if you have other comments. Thank you. A.Cython(talk) 02:22, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, still catching up after being away for a bit. I've reviewed the your comments above and changes to the article and all looks good to me. Happy to support this nomination - Dumelow (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you for your constructive comments for both articles. I do appreciate your input. A.Cython(talk) 20:27, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Menéndez's revolution

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): PizzaKing13 (talk)

Menéndez's revolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Menéndez's revolution was one of numerous liberals-deposing-liberals coup-revolutions that occurred in El Salvador during the late 19th century. This style of coup is more like a revolutionary war that hasn't been seen in El Salvador since 1894, with every coup after that being the standard type of coup that we see today. I'm genuinely surprised I was able to find all the information about this that I could, but that said, I was unable to find any information regarding total strength size nor casualty figures. The article should otherwise meet all A-class criteria. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 02:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Support Comments by A.Cython

This is my first time reviewing at the MHWP A-class level as part of doing my part. This also means that my comments might miss some things as I am still learning what it means to bring an article to the highest levels. Nevertheless, I hope you will find my comments useful. I will try to go through the sources in the following days as I am not familiar with the period and locale, so I might have more comments later on.

Lead & infobox

• revolución de 1885 is italics necessary for quotes in spanish? per MOS:NOITALIC

• Yes per MOS:NONENGITALIC

• between pragmatic liberals supporting avoid sequential wikilinks per WP:SEAOFBLUE

• I tried to avoid this when writing 1979 Salvadoran coup d'état, but apparently sea of blue isn't a big deal since the reviewers recommended that I should have links next to each other during the FAC. Either way, I can't think of a practical way to avoid sea of blue here without phrasing it weirdly or holding off linking one until much later in the article.

Main body

• amnesty.Menéndez a space is missing

• Fixed

• after rejecting a new constitution adopted in 1883 that allowed → after rejecting the new constitution adopted in 1883, which allowed

• Fixed

• longest lasting → longest-lasting

• Fixed

• Salvador fearing for his life add comma before "fearing"

• Fixed

• "completely bankrupt" ("completa bancarrota") it could ease the reading flow by just saying "bankrupt" (without the "")

• Changed

• "important positions" ("posiciones importantes") similar to the previous point, having the quote does not add any value

• Changed

• "many" drop the "" they are not needed

• There is no numeric casualty figure here. "Many" is the casualty figure according to Figueroa, so it should be quoted.

Aftermath

• (Consider this comment optional for A-review as it might be FA-level) Most of this section is about chronological events after Menéndez coming to power. This all good, but I fail to see a scholarship assessment of the revolution. Have historians offered any insights or critiques on this? Why did the constitution fail after 53 years, or what benefits the revolution provided, how did it impact indigenous communities, etc. Some brief statements (accompanied by WP:RS) might further elevate the article beyond a dominant military-event focused narrative.

• Yea... scholarship assessment of this pretty much doesn't exist. I added a mention of why the 1939 constitution failed since that does have coverage (by something completely unrelated), but anything else has pretty much nothing that I could find.

• From my brief search, I also got the same feeling.

Sources

• Please fix the "Harv id errors" in #33 & #34 citations by changing in the sfn template: Aceña 1899 → Aceña|1899

• Fixed

• Bernal Ramírez reference is not cited in the main body, perhaps move it to "Further reading" section?

• Moved

• Just as you did with "Contemporary newspapers", it would useful to do the same with books. I see you have three (Ward, Martin, and Aceña) books that can be classified as contemporary.

• Done

@A.Cython: That should be everything for this batch of comments, and thanks for taking the time to look at this! PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 18:38, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for making the changes. It was an interesting read. A.Cython(talk) 01:41, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Support by Dumelow

• We typically link ranks (general, divisional general) at first mention

• Linked

• "Divisional General Francisco Menéndez, an idealist liberal,[5] fled El Salvador for exile in Guatemala after the coup failed, but he returned shortly afterwards when Zaldívar issued an amnesty. Menéndez returned to Guatemala after rejecting the new constitution adopted in 1883, which allowed Zaldívar to seek re-election."

I wasn't quite sure what the situation was here. Did Guatemala reject the constitution or is this just Menéndez's opinion? I don't think you need to say "Menéndez returned to Guatemala" in the second sentence as you've just said he'd returned in the previous one. I think the second sentence would be better just as "Menéndez opposed the constitution of 1883 that allowed Zaldívar to seek re-election". Was the date for the election set? Presumably this would have been by the people not the junta?

• Reworded

• "Zaldívar was succeeded by Figueroa as provisional president since he was the second presidential designate (third in the line of presidential succession)"

Why didn't the vice-president or first presidential designate succeed? Did they also resign?

• Not sure. Ángel Guirola was Zaldívar's vice president (and president of the legislature) and did indeed become acting president when Zaldívar visited Europe in 1884. Cañas Dinarte II says that Guirola did "mediatory work" during the revolution and leaves it at that, and then fled to Europe once Menéndez was victorious. And I don't know who the first presidential designate was.

• Indalecio Miranda, Mardoqueo Sandoval, José Domingo Arce, Miguel Brioso, Narcio Talavera, Manuel Estévez, Narciso Avilés, Carlos Molina,

As generals these people are presumably notable and worth red linking

• Linked, though I doubt they'll ever get pages.

• "The same day, 1,000 government soldiers commanded by General Miguel Brioso engaged Rivas' troops on the El Chachacaste hill near Cojutepeque, but Rivas' counteroffensive forces Brioso's army to retreat."

Should be "forced", not "forces"

• Fixed

• I feel a map noting the locations stated in the text would be useful to the reader

• "On 26 June, Menéndez issued a manifesto to the Salvadoran people published in the Diario Oficial newspaper."

I don;t think you need "issued" and "published" in the same sentence, consider if "Menéndez published a manifesto to the Salvadoran people in the Diario Oficial newspaper" conveys the same meaning?

• Reworded

• "Menéndez rejected the 1885 constitution"

You've not previously mentioned this constitution (only the 1883 one), what did it contain?

• Sources don't elaborate. He apparently just didn't like it and told the Constitutional Assembly to try again.

• "the 1886 constitution, that among other things, banned immediate re-election and established a unicameral legislature"

I think you need to state "re-election of the president" here, unless it applied to all elected positions

• Added

• "Menéndez won the 1887 presidential election in a popular vote."

probably worth mentioning that he was unopposed

• Added

• I assume there are no sources mentioning comparative strengths of casualties of the opposing forces

• None that I could find

• "The city was captured by Rivas' 6,000-strong indigenous army"

MOS:'S requires this to be Rivas's

• Fixed PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 17:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

That's all I have on the text, the article looks to be in good shape - Dumelow (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Dumelow: That should be everything responded to. I'll get back to you on the map. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 19:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks good, supporting. There's an issue with one of your changes: "On 26 June, Menéndez issued a published to the Salvadoran people in the Diario Oficial newspaper". If there's not a suitable map on Commons and the current boundaries of El Salvador are broadly the same as those during the revolution you could do a pushpin map (I did similar at Natal Native Pioneer Corps) - Dumelow (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Ahuachapán

Armenia

Atiquizaya

Chahuapa

Chalatenango

Coatepeque

Cojutepeque

El Bejuco

Ilobasco

Izalco

La Unión

Nahuizalco

Nueva San Salvador

San Andrés

San Salvador

Santa Ana

Santo Domingo

Sonsonate

Suchitoto

caption here

@Dumelow: Here is everything mapped, but it turns into an illegible mess. I was thinking about creating a map in Inkscape instead if that would work better. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 23:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I see what you mean! Yes, a bespoke map focused on the west of the country might be best to cover the main area of operations. If Inkscape doesn't work out, you can try Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop, but not sure how quick they would be able to get to it. In any case not an issue for A-class promotion. Excellent work - Dumelow (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of 42nd Street

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): History6042 (talk)

Battle of 42nd Street (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Battle of 42nd Street/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Battle of 42nd Street/archive2

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I want to take it to FAC soon. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, @Gog the Mild, @UndercoverClassicist, @Nick-D, @Hog Farm, pinging people who reviewed the previous FACs or suggested I bring this to A-class first. History6042 😊 (Contact me) 21:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

I think the reviewer you really want is Zawed, an expert on New Zealand military history. Anyway, I will get the ball rolling with a series of suggestions.

• Background:
  • The summary gives the wrong impression that the British decided to send troops to Greece immediately after the Italian invasion, but the British offer of support was not accepted until February 1941, and no British force was sent to the mainland until March.
  • Not all were "soldiers", as the figure included the RAF
  • "The German army high command was preoccupied..." Recommend deleting this sentence, as it only confuses the reader, since Crete was invaded.
• Forces:
  • "On 29 April 1941, Major-general Bernard Freyberg" Capitalise "general" here.
  • "By 29 April, over 80,000 Commonwealth troops of the defeated Allied expeditionary force were evacuated from mainland Greece." This contrdicts the previous section, which said 60,000
  • In English, the convention is to use Roman numerals for corps
  • Since this article is on the Battle of 42nd Street, it would be better if it gave the forces engaged there, rather than on Crete in general.

• Battle:
  • Could we have page numbers instead of Chapter 9, Chapter 10 etc?
  • The dispositions along 42nd Street were arranged by Brigadier George Alan Vasey and Major-General Edward Puttick
  • "the German 1st Battalion" Of which regiment?
  • "Captain Elmo Dudley Nelson" -> "Captain St Elmo Dudley Nelson"
  • "Over 280 Germans were killed and three taken prisoner" The Australians estimated that they had killed about 200; the New Zealanders, more than 80. But it is only an estimate.
  • How about adding a map?

• Aftermath
  • "121 soldiers from 1st Battalion" Avoid starting a sentence with a numeral. (MOS:NUMNOTES)
  • Walker did not surrender the 2/7th

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, what do you mean Walker didn't surrender the 2/7th? My source says "It was Theo Walker who was now the senior officer at Skafia, and so it fell to him to perform the dreaded act." History6042 😊 (Contact me) 22:55, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

My source says:

Walker went down and found Colonel Colvin and another, who asked him the date of his promotion, and, learning that he (Walker ) was the senior, handed him Weston's order, quoted above . Walker decided that resistance was hopeless. He told his men to destroy their equipment and escape if they could. Hundreds of unarmed men were waving white flags, and soon German aircraft began shooting at them . With Goodwin, his adjutant, Walker climbed to Komitadhes, where he met an Austrian officer and surrendered to him.

— Long, Greece, Crete and Syria, p. 307

So I took that to mean that he surrendered only himself, and not the 2/7th. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, I think the combination of the two sources, mine saying he surrendered the 2/7th and yours saying he surrendered something. I think means he surrendered the 2/7th. History6042 😊 (Contact me) 01:09, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

MacDonald states that as the senior remaining Allied officer Walker surrendered all of the troops left in the bridgehead, as do Beevor and Monteath. None of them suggest that Walker surrendered just the 2/7th. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild and @Hawkeye7, I fixed the contradiction with the surrender, and while the map I am using is under copyright as far as I can tell, I added a description of the map in the "Forces" prose. All of these issues you two have brought up have been fixed. History6042 😊 (Contact me) 16:56, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

• "The Battle of 42nd Street (27 May 1941) was fought during World War II". The date should not be in brackets. Try 'The Battle of 42nd Street was fought on 27 May 1941 during World War II' or similar.
• "an attacking Anzac force". "Anzac" is a specialist term, use something more accessible to a general reader.
• "and fleeing German troops". According to the main article, the sources and the rest of the lead the Germans fled as a result of the attack, they weren't fleeing when attacked.
• "On 20 May, Nazi Germany launched". Why Nazi Germany? But not, eg, parliamentary democracy Britain?
• " Nazi Germany launched an airborne invasion of Crete." It launched a combined airborne and amphibious assault.
• "Afterwards, the Anzac troops kept retreating towards the coast." It may be worth mentioning which coast.
• "British forces also garrisoned Crete, enabling the Greek Fifth Cretan Division to reinforce the mainland campaign instead of helping defend Crete." "helping" seems an odd word. If British forces had not been present, whom would the Greeks have been helping?
• "Axis victories in Greece had given the Germans aerodromes roughly arranged in a semi-circle 60 miles (97 km) north of Crete" is incorrect. The source you give adds "with some as close as 60 miles".
• "Prior to the Battle of Crete, Axis victories in Greece had given the Germans aerodromes roughly arranged in a semi-circle 60 miles (97 km) north of Crete. These gave them air supremacy over the island, as their airplanes could operate from 60 miles (97 km) away". 1. I think that "as their airplanes could operate from 60 miles (97 km) away" can be deleted as it is repeating the previous sentence. 2. Why did these aerodromes give them air supremacy. I mean, the Brits had several air strips actually on the island.
• "The Royal Navy could thus not operate except for fast ships operating in the dark." 1. Why not? 2. Where could it not operate. Eg British warships were attacked in the vicinity of Crete in daylight on 20, 21 and 22 May; ie the RN was operating in daylight in some areas. 3. During what period, or at least starting from when? The next sentence refers back to 1 November 1940.
• "British troops began arriving on Crete on 1 November 1940, after departing from Alexandria in Egypt." Why have we jumped chronologically from May 1941 back to six months earlier?
• "They began Operation Scorcher". Which was what? - what was "Operation Scorcher"?
• "Using the Ultra decryption system". Which was what? - what was the "Ultra decryption system"?

Pausing. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean by the last two point, which what? @Gog the Mild, History6042 😊 (Contact me) 21:43, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Is that clearer? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, yes, thank you. History6042 😊 (Contact me) 22:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild and @Dumelow, I have addressed all of Gog the Mild's above issues. History6042 😊 (Contact me) 18:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: History6042 can you confirm if you have addressed Gog the Mild's comments above? I presume Gog is waiting for a response before completing their review - Dumelow (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, honestly I forgot about this review, I will get back to work on it today. History6042 😊 (Contact me) 18:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@History6042: Any progress? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:54, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Zawed as a suggested reviewer by Hawkeye7. History6042 😊 (Contact me) 23:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Supporting now? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Sturmvogel_66

• Overlinking of battalion and Anzac in the lede and overlinking in general
  • There is still some overlinking. Adding this script will easily allow you to find them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Be consistent in naming units. Forex, 5th Mountain Division vs 5th Alpine Division. Similarly, why no translation for Gebirgjäger?
• The British Royal Navy had kept control of the sea after the initial German attack. Why is this where it is? And it needs context.
• German 1st Battalion of the 141st Gebirgsjäger Regiment We already know that the unit is German
• Need to explain why there were heavy losses at sea during the evacuation
• The dead from 1st Battalion of the 141st Gebirgsjager Regiment were found dead by the Germans A little redundancy here, perhaps?
• Why are you using the full name of the Australian contingent vs. Australians? And why are the men of the 19th NZ battalion not mentioned?

• You need links for Allies of WW2, Commonwealth, coast-defence guns, and anti-aircraft
• Be consistent about adding parenthetical German names to units
• Provide links to all ranks on first use--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Source review

• need a semi-colon in the title for Kostic
• Sources not used should be deleted or moved to a Further Reading section--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Sturmvogel 66, I have fixed all the issues you brought up. History6042 😊 (Contact me) 22:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Long is out of alphabetical order--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

    @Sturmvogel 66, I fixed the alphabetical ordering issue. History6042 😊 (Contact me) 01:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• All page ranges need to use an en dash, see cites 10, 21, 27, 42, 45
• Cite 19 should be in title case to match the rest of the references
• Cites 4, 10, 11, 15, 18, 21, 28, 31, 42 spot checked--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Sturmvogel 66, I have fixed all the issues you brought up. History6042 😊 (Contact me) 20:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Australian sign at Forty Second Street on Crete 1941 (AWM P03731 001) (cropped).jpg, File:Damien Parer and Ron Williams stopped for a tea break on 42nd Street.jpg: PD AustraliaGov - okay
• File:Battle of crete.svg - CC 3.0 - okay

All images have appropriate licences.

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Support Comments by A.Cython

@History6042: Not really confident in modern warfare knowledge but I will try to review this one.

• join in on the attack (i think the meaning is preserved with less words)
• 450 metres convert template?
• Maori officer's, account Greek → Maori officer's account, Greek (move the comma)
• Aera note that this means in Greek "air", though it could be described as "Like the Wind", perhaps adding this would help the reader as most non-Greeks would not know what it means.
• The Australians too, were ordered to return to the road by Walter Miller, commander of the C Company, after he realized his troops had no cover and that they had already pushed the Germans far enough back. I find it hard to follow this sentence, care to rewrite?
• "suspicious" many → "suspicious" that many
• McGeoch's patrol were → McGeoch's patrol was
• and running south → and ran south
• Tsikalaria lined → Tsikalaria, lined (add comma)
• south east → south-east (add a dash, as this is how write elsewhere in the article)
• Soviet Union wikilink, this is not an existing country
• Retimo initially I thought this was a spelling error, but, correct me if I am wrong, you meant Rethymno. Apparently "Retimo" is Rethymno in Italian. To avoid confusion perhaps it is better to keep the WP:COMMONNAME as used in English and add a wikilink (note that you have Rethymno airfields higher up in the paragraph)
• On 21 May the first landings began I am confused. Elsewhere you say that it was on the 20 May when the Germans launched the attack. The relevant citation says 21 May, but elsewhere where I briefly looked says 20 May.
• (however it was known locally as Tsivalarion Road) perhaps make this an explanatory note using the efn template or something equivalent
• this claim was denied by the Australian official historian Gavin Long in his book Greece, Crete and Syria. He accepted that in the midst of the battle soldiers were clubbed and bayoneted. However, he denied Anzacs had killed the surrendering Germans. Walker also denied Germans had been killed illegally. I think this needs a relevant citation/attribution
• Some sources have publisher+location while other have only publisher info. Choose one format and keep it consistent. For example, Fort, Adrian (2009) does not have location
  • (optional) It might be helpful to separate the sources between different categories, i.e., books, journals, reports, web.
• is it possible to place a number to A few Greek soldiers? A.Cython(talk) 04:25, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I have fixed all of your comments, except for the ones addressed later. I think the issue of the landings being launched on 20 vs. 21 May means that the German's launched an attack on the 20th which landed/arrived on the 21nd. Additionally, the source for "A few Greek soldiers" only says "Hellenic soldiers were heard shouting 'Aera!'". @A.Cython, History6042 😊 (Contact me) 21:34, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

If you want to add some context here, a couple of references:

• https://www.britannica.com/topic/evzone In November 1940 an evzone regiment turned the tide of the Italian invasion by trapping and destroying a crack alpine division at Metsovo Pass, using their traditional tactic of sweeping down from the ridges while screaming their battle cry “Aera!” (“Like the wind!”).
• https://cdnth.thenationalherald.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/889_22_11532-1.pdf p. 15 As for the phrase “aera,” it was the signature battle cry of the Greek army during WWII. According to Giorgos Damianos, although first used by the Cretan state guard in 1908 to introduce a note of levity following a drill, it began to take on the form of a war cry during the Balkan Wars of 1912-13, and became synonymous with the bravery, vigor, and heroism of the Greek soldier by 1940. In its simple English translation, it just means “air,” but the cry of “aera” – the modern version of the ancient Greek battle cry of “alala” – instilled courage and joy in the hearts of the charging Greek soldiers, who would cry out “aera” to assure their fellow soldiers that the enemy’s fire was missing the target and hitting only the air!

Current reassessments

Please add new requests below this line