Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 61

This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest.

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

10
20
30
40
50
56
57
58
59
60
Archive 61
62
63
64
65
66
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160

Minor category complaint

Why was the US Civil War not accessible through Category:Warfare of the Industrial era? I just had to categorise it. Has the basic categorising been overhauled lately? Carcharoth 00:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Just an oversight, presumably; much of the category system is a work in progress, and is likely to be for the foreseeable future. Kirill 12:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Cruise missiles

Were there any mobile surface to surface cruise missile launch pads during the 80's. Cuzz I have been looking under every stone and sand grain but just cant find anything. Peacekeeper II 21:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Rename request for West Coast air raid

I'm trying to get West Coast air raid renamed to Battle of Los Angeles; as nutty as the proposed new title sounds, it's what the media and historians prefer calling it. "West Coast air raid" seems to be an invention of Wikipedians. Whether you agree with my position or not, feel free to contribute to the discussion here: Talk:West Coast air raid. Ichormosquito 03:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Bir Hakeim, bis.

I'm done translating the French FA !! You may want to :

Proofread it !
re-evaluate its quality, and make some suggestions to improve it !

Thanks ! NicDumZ ~ 08:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Romanian Land Forces now open

The A-Class review for Romanian Land Forces is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Panipat (1761) now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Panipat (1761) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 01:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Ho Chi Minh Campaign now open

The A-Class review for Ho Chi Minh Campaign is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 17:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Pericles

Pericles has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Vassyana 08:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Colour specifications for flags

I was reading Flag of Germany, and I was dismayed to come across Flag of Germany#Specifications of the colour set, which is very geeky technical specifications for the colours of the flag, in no less than four different colour models. I don't know if flag articles fall under WP:MILHIST, but I want to read about the history and story of a flag, not be told how to make a flag image with the right colours. Does anyone agree with me, and if so, what is the best way to deal with it? Carcharoth 00:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Who the heck broke the battle boxes?

The "battles of war X" boxes appear to be broken - at least they now all float to the left (and often overlap with the TOC) as opposed to floating to the right as they used to. I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.6, so I don't think I have some weird browser that has an atypical HTML/CSS/Javascript render behavior. --Vedexent (talk) - 00:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. They are completely jacked. Take a look at Attacks at Fort Blue Mounds, its in the intro now, which doesn't work all that well. ;) Could someone remedy this? I tried my hand, didn't see anything obviously different other than a category addition. IvoShandor 00:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Standardizing navigation templates above? Kirill mentioned he'd changed some generic navbox thing... See here, where he says: "I've changed {{military navigation}} to use {{navbox generic}} with some particular styles set." That sounds like it might explain what you are seeing. Carcharoth 00:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

~~And as you can see, because I forgot to tl-non-transclude them, they've floated left, which is what you are describing. Carcharoth 00:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)~~

Now fixed; apparently "margin: auto" causes problems on Firefox but not on IE when additional explicit margins are set. Sorry about that! Kirill 00:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No problems - I know from experience that cross-browser compliant CSS is a right royal pain-in-the-butt. Thanks for the prompt repair. --Vedexent (talk) - 00:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I second the thanks for the speedy repair as well. Did you change something else? The text looks different in my browser now, I like it better. IvoShandor 01:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, see a bit further up. ;-) Kirill 01:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Ah. IvoShandor 01:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Article request

So I have been working quite a bit on the Black Hawk War of 1832, so far raising 8 of 12 battle/skirmish/massacre articles from basically nothing to good article status. Anyway, I wondered if anyone here would be interested in writing an article on a war faction relating to the war, Chief Black Hawk's "British Band" of Native American Sauk and Fox warriors. Basically you could seek out the relevant info at Black Hawk War and use the citations there as well as looking at some of the other sources on that page, poking around on them, and seeing what you could come up with. Either way, the article will eventually get done, but since it's fairly important in the overall scheme of documenting the conflict I would like to see it get done sooner rather than later since right now I am still concentrating on the last 4 battle articles. Any takers? IvoShandor 01:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

First Battle of the Stronghold FAR

First Battle of the Stronghold has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

A-Class review for Byzantine-Ottoman wars now open

The A-Class review for Byzantine-Ottoman wars is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kyriakos 22:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiChevrons with Oakleaves

Just noticed this; are there any actual oakleaves in the picture? It looks more like a laurel wreath.... -- Hongooi 13:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The US military thinks they're oak leaves; see Oak leaf cluster (which is where the image is derived from). ;-) Kirill 16:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Military of the Democratic Republic of the Congo now open

The A-Class review for Military of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 16:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

62d Medical Brigade

The original author of the 62d Medical Brigade appears to have ownership issues and won't even tolerate a WPMILHIST template on the article's talk page. I'm not not at all sympathetic to his newbieness, having been cross-wise with him on other issues. I'm pointing this out to folks who might be interested in that article and might be in a better situation to reason with him productively, and walking away. Enjoy. Studerby 06:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be an issue with the unassesed status the template was placing on the talk page. I have assessed the article, but that doesn't garentee the article will still have the project template tommarow. On a related note, the article needs cleanup and wikilink attention badly. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Rat-eating in the Royal Navy

I expect most people will think this is a joke - it isn't - and I'm trying to put together an article on the subject. If anyone has any references please can you add them to my sub-page here. (Also interested in dog-eating, etc.) I'm off to Poland tomorrow and will try to work up an article next weekend. --Major Bonkers (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Byzantine-Ottoman wars needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Byzantine-Ottoman wars; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill 19:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Identify that tank/gun, round 2

Two months ago, I posted here with about a half-dozen pictures I took at the Aberdeen proving ground museum, asking if people could identify them. It went very well. I had occasion this week to visit the musuem again. This time, I didn't skip the ones that lacked nameplates. I've uploaded the ones I've identified here, but these still need to be incorporated into articles.

Meanwhile, I have a lot of pictures of tanks and guns that need to be identified. I've uploaded them here so you can browse them. I tried to get at least two shots of every exhibit, from front and in profile. As far as my naming scheme, the numbers identify the exhibit, and the letters identify the picture. So: 1A is the first picture of the first exhibit, 1B is the second picture of the first exhibit, 2A is the first picture of the second exhibit, and so on and so fourth. Raul654 04:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's an easy one. 1A and 1B is a Nazi-era Jagdpanzer IV tank destroyer. Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 04:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the latter pictures (44/43, that area) look to be of the German 88 mm gun; though I wouldn't swear to it. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Another: 2B and 2C are Jagdpanther tank destroyers. Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 04:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: I've created a list at User talk:Raul654/favpics/2007 Ordnance Museum 2 for answers and best guesses. Raul654 04:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, I'll take it there then. Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 05:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, most of the pieces are identified now. As for the rest, I must admit I have no idea what they are... A pity you didn't have a ruler - knowing a caliber would probably help :). Bukvoed 16:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Help needed at Alvin York

A new user has made significant additions to Alvin York, but they have been using an excessively florid style and are adding quite a bit of preachy information about York's religious convictions. I've left three messages on the user's talk page and have received no response, nor have they responded to messages on the article talk page. This does not seem to be a high traffic article, so it would be great if some MILHIST members could get involved. Or at least watchlist the article. Natalie 21:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Napoleonic scope

Is it correct to assume that this task force covers all conflicts, world-wide, post 1792? Folks at 137 21:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we've been basically going with the idea that it covers everything in the 1792–1815 period, regardless of geography. Kirill 21:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Archie!

Looking at the sub & DD pp, I note none of them include bunkerage. Shouldn't the templates ask/provide for it? Trekphiler 22:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Musing a hypothetical war portal concept

Aside from global conflicts on the scale of WWI and WWII, do you feel that individual wars of at least a moderate scale, length and importance, but not too well-known, oh say, the First Indochina War, are deserving of their own WP:PORTALs? In other words, can these wars supply enough battles, events, equipment and persons, to furnish a high-quality portal? If they can, are they necessary? How is Portal:WWII different from Second World War? Are portals a redundant regurgitation of information that can be found elsewhere? Or are portals a nice organizational complement to articles because of their non-prose nature? Seeing that the individual articles for these wars are more often than not ill-kept and in bad shape, can a portal serve as a nexus from which content relating to the war can be gathered, classified, and presented on an organized, professional level? -- Миборовский 03:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's doable, I'd think; see, e.g. Portal:Italian Wars. The only real problem we run into for smaller wars is a lack of high-quality articles to showcase; if that can be mitigated, I don't see any practical difficulties with setting up portals for them.

As for whether portals are needed: one major way in which portals are different from articles in that they're intended to change between visits. A portal with long content queues can provide a nearly unlimited variety of material for (occasional) readers; an article, on the other hand, is meant to become stable and not change over time. In this sense, portals are a fundamentally different breed of animal. Given that we're not going to run out of space, I don't see any drawbacks to creating (well-maintained) portals even on topics of a more limited scale. Kirill 06:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I see neither practical problems, but in my opinion it is better approach if smaller wars are grouped together in one portal for example all the recent Indochina Wars(France USA Cambodia China) could have one portal, another example would be the war on terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Wandalstouring 16:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't like Portal:Indochina Wars if all it does is string together a tenuous series of unrelated wars, for it makes it seem like there is insufficient content for us to work with. In some instances this is true, but in other cases it's merely a matter of systematic bias and inaccessibility of materials to English-speaking populations, or simply a matter of related articles starting off on a bad footing and never recovering. If a portal is set up for, say, Portal:First Indochina War, could it serve to counteract these deficiencies? -- Миборовский 19:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

From my observation I think portals should also serve as an index of compiled information regarding the topic; articles are prose form and cannot delve into every single article/issue/topic of relevance, while portals and not constrained thus. Could a portal, even one that is left mostly alone, provide a sufficiently large and well-organized launching point for content relating to the topic when the article cannot or should not do so? For example, looking at First Indochina War, I was unable to find a list of prominent figures within the Vietminh faction, which theoretically, should be easily accessible on a portal page, either through a Selected Biography section, a category listing, or a list article. -- Миборовский 19:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The Indochina Wars were all fought and won by general Giap. They are very much related. 06:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wandalstouring (talk • contribs)

It certainly isn't my intention to argue whether the Indochina Wars are related or not. What I really want to know is if there is enough mass out there to support a portal for a war of intermediate scale, length, importance, and obscurity. -- Миборовский 03:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Madslashers

I would just like to draw peoples attention to the Madslashers article. I found it as part of the drive and i think it needs some clearup. I have done a bit but the tenses need clearing up, some mention of the trial, if it has occured should be added. I couldn't find much information through google. Also, is this noteworthy as an article, should it be renamed? Thanks Woodym555 13:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there an article about the unit, this looks like a candidate for merger if I ever saw one. ~~Those photos seem more like vanity pictures than anything else, they probably qualify for deletion on those grounds~~. IvoShandor 13:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Nix the last comment about photos. : ) IvoShandor 13:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as i can tell, the only link is to the Rangers. The 75th redirects there. It could be added there, i suppose. Woodym555 14:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think PLATOON-level units are notable. -- Миборовский 19:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree - especially when the platoon isn't independent but is part of a larger unit. This article seems to be a well-meaning, but confused, attempt to cover a sub-unit of the 2-75th which seems, at face value, to suffer from disipline problems. It seems appropriate to either merge some the content into the main article on the Rangers or re-write it to move the focus onto the robbery - it seems that it's the robbery and its implications which might be notable, and not the platoon per-se. --Nick Dowling 00:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Nick, the robbery part might well be notable, as is it might still work best in the main 75th article, don't know for sure, just because it would be so short. Unless, of course, someone is down for some expansion, but it should be merged, and/or refocused and retitled. IvoShandor 03:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats what i thought when i brought it up here. At first i thought it was a joke, what with the bank robbery etc. I think it best to cut down and focus on the robbery, then merge it into the Rangers article under Discipline problems, or in the news (or whatever the main contributors on that page think). Woodym555 10:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that most platoon-level units aren't. I can think of one exception. -- llywrch 21:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

US nuclear warhead designation convention

I've come across a number of new articles on US nuke warheads. They're typically titled in the style "W57" (no hyphen), but the articles themselves generally employ the form "W-57" (with a hyphen). I couldn't find anything authoritative on the web, and I've always seen it both ways, even in military documents. Do we have a preferred convention on this? Askari Mark (Talk) 16:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Major revision to the article on Philopoemen

Recently I read this article and realised that despite the detail and effort that had been put in by previous editors, the point had been reached where a major revision to the article was required. The article had become much too long and was written in a style that was very difficult for the reader to follow. Therefore, I have removed what I considered to be unnecessary detail, as well as work to improve the grammar and layout of the article.

I would really appreciate feedback from anybody interested in this famous ancient Greek general on the changes that I have made to the article. Any additions to improve the quality and accuracy of the article would also be appreciated. --Chaleyer61 13:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ypu might want to leave a note on the Classical warfare task force page as well to alert editors there. The members there have expressed an interest in classical warfare and should be able to help. Woodym555 14:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I will do that. Thanks. --Chaleyer61 23:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the article and tell you what I think. Kyriakos 05:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Cossack military units

What do people think of Category:Cossack military units? My initial inclination was to rename it to Category:Cossack units and formations, but the point was brought up that these are not purely military units, but rather political and administrative groupings that happened to field equivalently named military units; thus, I don't think that the other standard naming—Category:Military units and formations of the Cossacks—is going to be any better. A few other ideas that come to mind:

Upmerge the category to the parent Category:Military organization of Cossacks
Rename the category to something like Category:Cossack groups and organizations and take it out of the "military units" tree entirely
Double-categorize the articles as "groups and organizations" and as "military units"

We don't really have any precedent for dealing with such not-fully-military groupings, as far as I know; so any suggestions would be very appreciated. Kirill 15:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It is fine as it is, or could be renamed to a more standard category:Cossack military units (and formations?). But the category itself should also be added to category:Settlements and category:Country subdivisions, to better represent the role of the Cossack organization in their society.

It looks like there should also be a category:Cossack military ranks, or category:Military ranks of Cossacks. —Michael Z. 2007-08-20 13:02 Z

I have no objections to having it at either Category:Cossack units and formations ("Cossack" being considered a type of unit), Category:Cossack military units and formations (a somewhat non-convention-compliant variant of the first option, if people insist on having "military" in the name), or Category:Military units and formations of the Cossacks ("Cossack" being considered a larger group responsible for the units); of the two, I would tend towards the first option, since the units were largely part of other nations' militaries rather than and independent Cossack one. (Someone did think this wasn't a good idea, though, so I wanted to get some more opinions.)

A rank category would be good, and should probably mirror the unit category in terms of naming. Kirill 14:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I presume the units category would include Cossack organizations all the way up to voiskos (hosts), which could be considered equivalent to national militaries. —Michael Z. 2007-08-20 16:04 Z —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:04, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Presumably it would; although it may help a bit to create a distinct subcategory (i.e. Category:Cossack hosts), since we could then move the settlements/subdivisions categories to it. Kirill 16:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

'Roll of Honour' on HMS Royal Oak (08)

Your opinions are sought in a disagreement that has arisen over this article. An editor has added on several occasions a complete list of the 833 casualties of HMS Royal Oak, sunk in 1939. Currently, myself and another editor believe, for a variety of reasons that include excessive length and deviation from the summary-style of a WP article, that this list is out of place. The list is contained on a long-standing web page linked to in the External links section, and in a number of written and online sources. Any insight you can offer in this situation would be useful. — BillC ^talk 20:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#MEMORIAL seems pretty clear-cut on things like this. We don't include full lists of casualties for any other battle or disaster either. Kirill 20:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was vaguely aware of a guideline to that effect, but was unable to find it. He's now at 3RR anyway. — BillC ^talk 20:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the determination of the anon editor, some additional support or watchlisting would be welcome. — BillC ^talk 23:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There was similar recently on the RLC article, the editor appeared to also be doing the same to other regiment and corps articles but I didn't have time to follow it up.

I'd agree with the WP:NOT position, the listings don't add value to the articles unless there are internal links to notable individuals.

ALR 09:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible problem with campaignbox rendering

Due to certain (albeit otherwise very useful) changes to how link wrapping is done, certain campaignboxes with long titles formatted as a single link may see one of several issues:

The title is forced onto a second line, with the first line left blank.
The title is forced onto a second line, with the first line left blank; and the box is stretched beyond its normal width (hopefully never occurs).

There is a workaround to these, as noted at WP:MILHIST#NAVPROBLEMS; if anyone spots one of these, please try to fix it, or leave a link here for someone else to do so. Thanks! Kirill 22:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Treaty of Devol

Treaty of Devol has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Military history of Gibraltar during World War II now open

The A-Class review for Military history of Gibraltar during World War II is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 17:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Fort Stanton (Washington, D.C.) now open

The A-Class review for Fort Stanton (Washington, D.C.) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 17:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Jacques Le Gris now open

The A-Class review for Jacques Le Gris is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 01:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Enfield revolver now open

The A-Class review for Enfield revolver is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 03:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Major accuracy problems?

Some of you may know that I have been diligently working on improving Wikipedia's coverage related to the Black Hawk War. The problem discussed below is a bit lengthy, sorry, please do read on.

I have a friend that works at a local newspaper, he was talking to the President of Northern Illinois University and somehow the Black Hawk War came upon, I guess he is quite the Black Hawk War buff. In this conversation he called the Wikipedia article on the war "blatantly wrong." This is really bothering me, I have been working extraordinarily hard on this article, and I strive for accuracy because I think the dissemination of knowledge is only useful if it is correct, with history especially. I have poured over hundreds upon hundreds of pages of text on the internet, in books, on microfiche etc, to make this article move toward shining. I don't know if this person read an older version weeks ago or came upon yesterday, I just don't and can't know that, but the fact that he pointed out an article that I have put so much energy into has really discouraged me. What I am wondering is, can anyone take a look at the article, maybe together we can flesh out any inaccuracy. It doesn't seem to me that the article is in any way "blatantly wrong." At least not based on everything I have read and studied thus far. If this article is truly inaccurate then I give up, my days on Wikipedia are over. Unfortunately, I don't know any historians on the Wiki, which would be a great thing if I did and had a professional with knowledge on the topic help flesh it out, but we make do around here with what we have. I am no stranger to historical research and don't think I have made any missteps along the way, I am very careful to consult multiple sources before writing, sometimes they disagree but I almost always note this unless I think it's just too trivial or the source too biased to be useful. Basically disregard the stray point on the graph, you know?

If anyone can help flesh this article out with me, please do.IvoShandor 07:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There are several possibilities here. Quite possibly the critic had read an old version of the article (or the wrong article). Possibly there has been new history uncovered that you haven't included. Possibly the critic is taking one side in a controversial matter. Possibly the critic is wrong? Do keep trying to get external opinions, and don't let this get you down. If it really, really bothers you, the only way to be sure is to contact the critic and see what he says. Carcharoth 03:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind historians, they have quite often their own ideas and argue a lot with each other. You try to present what historians say on the subject, perhaps these opinions are a bit more controversial than your presentation but that doesn't make you wrong. Wandalstouring 07:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

One of this Project's Good Articles, Presidio of Santa Barbara has been nominated for Good Article review. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Drewcifer3000 19:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Jacques Le Gris needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Jacques Le Gris; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill 00:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Enfield revolver needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Enfield revolver; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill 00:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of the Plains of Abraham now open

The A-Class review for Battle of the Plains of Abraham is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 03:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)