Hey Jason, quick question: in all of the British BC articles, you mention that the torpedo bulkheads were abreast the magazines and shell rooms; am I correct in reading that to mean that's the only portions of the ships protected by a bulkhead? I'd just look at Roberts myself, but like an idiot I returned it to the library last week. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the same sort of thing, so you have plenty of company. The torpedo bulkheads only cover the magazines and shell rooms, not the machinery from Invincible through Tiger. From Renown onward, the bulkhead backs the bulge and is continuous.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's what I thought you meant. I had considered scanning Roberts before I returned it, but decided against it. `Parsecboy (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it depends on how quickly you can get hold of the books, I'm a bit too impatient, so I prefer to have my own copy on hand. I'm in the process of being a scanning fool as I've got a bunch of volumes of Warship to do, along with Sokol, Burt's British predreadnought book and a few others. Cheaper than photocopying, although I do prefer reading them on paper.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews
I hope those are not finished reviews. They don't offer me much help in improving them.--
The articles are pretty good already and only need the specified material added to be passed. If I give a line a + sign then it's good to go and needs no further work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are part of a group of 16 that I have been working on together. I have added a lot of features to them mirroring what I have done with the other articles. I might have to expand Sims a bit more before it is really finished. I will try to finish these up tomorrow. I just want to make sure I have gotten all of them with the same types of features.--
OK, I was wondering what was going on with them. Let me know when you're done with them. And, BTW, I'd strongly recommend that you do a few GA reviews yourself to help offset all of your GANs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Saint Cast
Have taken your advice and added citations. Please take another look to see if it is up to 'B' now. Thanks.Tttom1 (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Citations are now complete, but there's one bit of truly awkward prose that needs to be fixed that I've marked with a tag.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have rewritten passage.Tttom1 (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to review my GAN articles. If there is any question, unclear statement or any suggestion for improvement, please make it. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 23:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you make it easy; well-written articles that comply with the MOS deserve it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sturmvogel, a quick suggestion about your GA reviews - when you pass an article, could you fill in the "|topic=" parameter on the GA template with the appropriate category? For military articles, the category is usually History. This helps to categorize the article properly. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but you might want to add that to the instructions. I'll try to remember that from now on.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is in the instructions on the GAN page, under "Pass" - that part's just in a footnote, so it's fairly easy to miss. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. Y'all should make it more prominent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I noticed your GA nomination of Russian battleship Imperatritsa Ekaterina Velikaya, and I have a question/remark: shouldn't the name be rendered Yekaterina, since this is the proper pronunciation of the name in Russian? Constantine ✍ 06:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is currently a GA nominee. Could you possibly give it a quick review before August 30? The reason I am asking is because you reviewed Lavaca Bay for me recently.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please be sure to get a map from somewhere.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. I have addressed all concerns.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestion. Yes, I agree this article as well as the Egyptian Camel Transport Corps article need info boxes, but I am not sure which template to use as the military unit template is so clearly designed for fighting units. Is there one for service units? --RoslynSKP (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A-Class reviews during the period January-June 2010, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. Roger Daviestalk 10:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Can you help
With plain English here - [1] - ThanksJo0doe (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HMS New Zealand
Hello Sturmvogel 66. Some time ago I wrote an article about New Zealand in pl wiki. I found in all my sources, like Conway's or Colledge (2006), she was launching on 1st July. Can you tell me, why did you write 11th? Is this any mistake or that web source is correct and I don't know something about? Greetings KrzysM99 (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a typo; I'll fix it momentarily.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't ;). There is 11th on RNZN page. Change source. -- KrzysM99 (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/cup
It appears that you are one of the finalists. I have put together a summary chart for us to sort of get to know each other. Feel free to come by and fill in
Pool B's winner was Casliber (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
Pool A's close second was Sasata (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
Pool B's close second was ThinkBlue (submissions). Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
The second wildcard was White Shadows (submissions). Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
The third wildcard was Staxringold (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
The fourth wildcard was William S. Saturn (submissions). Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.
We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle.
Gary King (submissions) contributed a variety of did you know articles. Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions) said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. Arsenikk (submissions) did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to Ian Rose (submissions), who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to Stone (submissions
) for these.
here
- the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list.
Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at
The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Sturmvogel 66 for his great efforts in the August 2010
Military History monthly article writing Contest, placing equal first with a total of 133 points from 23 articles. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
Hi
Can you check teh article as this does not seem right the squadron was re-formed with Courageous as flagship along with her sister ship Courageous presume one of the names should be Glorius --Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, over-zealous use of copy-paste, I'm afraid.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
French pre-dreads
I have to confess that was in waaay too much of a rush to find even the slightest unobvious resources for some of the ships. But for some, I think I busted my bones using Google Books. Good luck finding nice references for them. Buggie111 (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a couple of French-language titles that I'll have to request if we're ever going to get them to even GA. The Italian pre-dreadnoughts are going to be another problem and I don't even know of any Italian-language sources for their operational histories.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for French ironclad La Galissonnière
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Pará class monitor. Nice work.4meter4 (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
DYK for John Ericsson class monitor
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hmm, I didn't know that either. I think it might be one of those things that it's nice to do, but are rarely done because I've done lots of reviews and rarely been thanked, but then I never expected to be thanked, so I was not offended. At any rate, you're welcome; I hope you give me more opportunities to review your work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Brazilian monitor Pará
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Chicago is out, updated for the first time in 7 years, I believe. I think I can help most with the GAN backlog by dealing with copyediting issues in a bunch of different GANs, but I'd rather read the new Chicago first, and it's a lot to digest. Back soon, busier than before. - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
All I can say is better you than me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1000 pages, small type, organized according to their own special logic. Joy joy. - Dank (push to talk) 16:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I won a copy of the 14th? edition (the early 80s one) in a giveaway by the UC Press, but have hardly ever looked at since it didn't cover my eternal question about the possessive plural of words that end in 's'.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Pará class monitor
nominate
) 12:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Brazilian monitor Santa Catharina
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
The NGB entries for both ships note a 25 mm Nordenfelt gun. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed they do, but the 1-inch Nordenfelt gun wasn't invented until the late 1870s and the NGB isn't a reliable source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While self-published, NGB is a secondary source maintained by expert editors and based entirely on Brazilian Navy sources. That's not the Nordenfelt gun I meant; this is. But, hey, it's your call :) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article that you linked to is an overview of all Nordenfeldt guns, including the one that I linked to. Since I intend to submit these for GA rather soon I can't use NGB as it's not RS. Plus I'm curious why my main source mentioned the 11-mm guns for Alagoas and Piauí, but didn't mention these larger guns.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's curious indeed. I'll try to find a more reliable source and will let you know if I come up with something. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I was just about to put Goeben up for FAC when I read this in the instructions: "If a nomination is archived...none of its nominators may nominate or conominate any article for 2 weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate." I suppose what we could do is just put it up as just mine for now and you could add your name in a week. Or you could run it by Karanacs or Sandy - I doubt they'd object. Parsecboy (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'd thought co-noms were different. Oh well. I guess my name can't go up until the 14th then. I'll ask Karanacs, since he failed Indefatigable, and you can add my name if he says OK, or on the 14th if not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll go ahead and put it up now, and we'll see what Karanacs says (she's a she, by the way). Parsecboy (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Karanacs said that a co-nom is OK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, go add your name. There's one thing Ed brought up about something you added that I didn't quite understand. Can you take a look? Parsecboy (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HMS Glorious
Hello, Sturmvogel 66. You have new messages at Talk:HMS Glorious/GA1. Message added 00:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand FAC
Hi Sturm. A couple of hours ago White shadows suggested that I should ask either Ed or you for info on whether or not to send this one up for another FAC. Since you are much less leniant the Ed (I don't want to be mean or anything), I decided to ask you first. So, do you think it's ready to take on another FAC? Buggie111 (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I think your biggest problem is that there's really not much to the article because the ship didn't do a whole lot. It needs a copy edit. I cleaned up some of the propulsion stuff where you were mixed up, but the writing needs work. See if you can expand the bit about use of seaplanes during the Balkan Wars.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I noticed the other article after I'd created my new one. I plan to merge them and since the class issue is confusing I'll keep both templates on the combined article. I have different sources that say that she was a member of both classes. The whole issue of the relationship between the Skorpionen and John Ericsson classes is uncertain as I have little doubt that they're related somehow, but I don't know how. And as I don't read Norwegian or Swedish the mystery isn't liable to be solved any time soon as I've tapped most of the English-language sources. If you want to take a stab at hunting down the relevant books and solving the mystery, be my guest. You've done some very nice work on Norwegian artillery, but I'd be happy to work with you on what may be unfamiliar territory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. I'll have a look in my books and see what I can find. I've actually done a lot of work on Norwegian warships over the years, just not very recently. Manxruler (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great. I know the books are out there as I've seen references, but the language barrier makes it too much trouble to try and figure out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I just dived into my personal library and dug up a book that deals with all Norwegian naval vessels between 1814 and 2008. According to Norske marinefartøy by Sverre Mo Mjølner was not in the same class as Skorpionen, but was in the same class as Trudvang - a ship built at Karljohansvern in Norway. However, Mo has been wrong with regards to other naval vessels, so I don't trust him completely. Will continue looking. Manxruler (talk) 10:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And here we go: According to the trustworthy 90 år under rent norsk orlogsflagg by Marius Thomassen, Norway's first monitor was the Skorpionen, launched at Karljohansvern, and after that another three monitors were aquired: Mjølner, Trudvang and Thor. All these three vessels were built after drawings by John Ericsson, Mjølner having been built in Sweden and the other two in Norway. So, really, Trudvang at least is also a John Ericsson class monitor, and there was in reality no Skorpionen class. Skorpionen was a single-ship project. Manxruler (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just noticed this; I've been a bit busy of late. So does what else does Thomassen say? Who designed Skorpionen? So Trudvang and Thor were repeats of Mjølner, just built in Horten? Does he provide stats for any of these ships? Feel free to update the articles on all these ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
French ironclad Alma
No doubt its on your watch list but just a note to say I have passed
No, she's a little too early for OMT, but thanks for asking. And thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for French ironclad Suffren
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media
).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a
bot
, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi there, I've never heard of such a gun in service. There was a 64-pounder RBL which attempted to solve the problem of the Armstrong screw breech but as far as I know it never went into service. The template covers weapons in official Royal Navy and associated colonial navy service. Armstrong may have delivered some such guns to other countries as private orders but that's outside the scope of the template. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was my mistake. According to Lambert's book on Warrior a 70-pdr was tested, but not accepted after it failed its tests. I've deleted it from the template.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclops and John Ericsson class DYK submissions
I had to challenge a bunch of these at DYK because most of the individual ship articles are composed mostly of text from the related -class article. I suggest next time, you submit the individual ship articles and don't bother submitting the -class article, that way you will probably get more DYKs. Gatoclass (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for letting me know.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, the way I calculate it when two new articles with shared text are submitted is by looking for 1500 characters of original text in the second and subsequent articles. That is, the shared text can count in one of the new articles, but the other has to have at least 1500 chars of new text in addition to the shared text. So when you submit articles with shared text, all of them except one have to have 1500 chars of new text in addition to the shared text. That may help you tweak your articles for max. DYKs next time. Gatoclass (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fair. Main problem is that the ships didn't actually do much so there's not much unique text possible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I figured that :) One thing you could do though is to cut down on the individual ship service histories in the class article, just leaving a summary. That would give you more unique text in the individual ship articles. I don't think it's good practice to give a really detailed account of individual service histories in the class articles anyhow, because it means people who read both the individual ship and class articles end up reading exactly the same text in both. Gatoclass (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I try to limit the individual ship histories in the class articles and just cover the highlights, but it's hard, depending on the amount of material available, to strike a balance. There's a lot of material, forex, in the Renown class article, that maybe should be in the ship article, but I normally put refit data in the class article. And that's the bulk of the stuff in the ship history section. OTOH, the stuff on the monitors was just about everything I knew and there was nothing to save for the ship articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's an individual call at the end of the day. I can see what you mean about the monitor articles. I do think you went a bit overboard on the Renown class article, but that's not really an issue here. Anyhow, I just thought I would make the suggestion, it's up to you how you how you want to organize your articles, but in cases where you only have a little info as I said it would be better to nominate the individual ship articles and forgo the DYK on the class article as you will get more DYKs that way :) Gatoclass (talk) 05:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sturmvogel. I recently finished up the major writing parts of this new list. I know that there are several nitpicks here and there like precise dates for the date the sip was laid down, the launch dates, more citations in the lead and possibly a better image for the beginning of the list but are there any other issues that need to be worked out before I move this into the mainspace? All the best,--White ShadowsYour guess is as good as mine 01:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's presentable enough to be moved into mainspace, IMO. It needs a copyedit, though, and I think that you know what else you have to do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly do. I'll move it now and get to work on the issues that need fixing like citations in the lead, images, infobox info ect. and then it's off to ACR. Hopefully there will not be too many issues by the time I submit it there.--White ShadowsYour guess is as good as mine 02:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest submitting to
WP:MHAR first to see if it meets B-class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
The term "armed forces" means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard is further defined by 14 U.S.C.§ 1:
The Coast Guard as established 28 January 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times. The Coast Guard shall be a service in the Department of Homeland Security, except when operating as a service in the Navy.
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Daviestalk 19:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your DYK hook is too long
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
That's a lovely read Sturmvogel, well done. If no-one else has picked it up by tomorrow night I might have time to GA review it too. My only comment from reading it through now is that there's no indication of who made the quote in the first section.
I'd love to help out with the other articles, although I (perhaps obviously) have less on the Black Prince! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think everybody has less info on Black Prince, but between Ballard and Parkes I think we can make do. I do wish that I had more info on the capsizing incident while she was under construction. Hard to believe that the only things damaged were her masts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phew, been a while since I did a GA! I hope it doesn't come across as too strict, I think my brain is a little more wired to A class and FA nowadays! Made some small prose adjustments, but have left more major issues up to you. Also, can I presume that we no longer transcribe the review page to the article's talk page? Ranger Steve (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the bot is supposed to handle the transclusion. The review was fine, just need to see if the changes made satisfy. Send me an email, I'd like to discuss plans for the rest of the class and maybe some of the other British ironclads.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. I'll need to set up email on wiki first though. Probably be tomorrow. Ranger Steve (talk) 08:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi I have started the review but it does not seem to have transcluded onto the talk page the link is here for you. Talk:HMS Tiger (1913)/GA1. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hellenic Naval Air Service
Thank you for your time reviewing the article. I'll work on the ga review points during the next hours.Alexikoua (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Neosho class monitor for GA, there's just a few little things that need to be fixed. Also, have you seen these? You could put them up as a gallery in the development section. Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
DYK for Cyclops class monitor
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for passing it. I've notified the author, (Perseus71). Dapi89 (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]
DYK for HMS Hydra (1871)
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Nomination procedure, the procedure for promotions are outlined, noting pretty much everything you'd have to do. Best way to go about it is trial and error, so if you want to try and promote a GT go for it. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 12:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I made a couple tweaks, but I don't see anything that's actually wrong. Looks good for a first promotion, thanks for doing that. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 01:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to do Like a Virgin tomorrow. Anything of modest significance that I should do differently? I'm feeling too lazy to check back through all those pages.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Warrior class ironclad
nominate
) 06:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Sevastopol
I know I've been bugging you about this since May, but could you please check if McLaughlin has anything on the older, pre dread Petropavlovsk calss, specifically User:Buggie111/ Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895). I really want to know how if I have anything left before I can put this in the mainspace (besides fixing the citeweb templates and stuff like that).
Sorry, I've been a bit distracted. Your timing sucks, I just turned in the McLaughlin book a couple of days ago as I couldn't renew it any more. Are you sure that you can't get it through ILL?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By sheer luck my local library just got a copy, but it's in library use only. I'm gonna have to find out how to get downtown with destroying my already jam-packed scheduale. I rechecked the Google Books snippet view, and the first three mentions are all about the latter Sevastopol, so I don't think there is that much info on it. Just remember to skim through and see if there is anything on her that's not already cited when you get the book. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a whole chapter on the entire class so bring some change for photocopies when you go to the library. Just be sure to check the index for later references.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll try my best, or might just jot down notes. Do you happen to know if military installations participate in inter-state ILL? Buggie111 (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They should, I've gotten books from Ft. Leavenworth and the Air Force Academy before.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'll see if Edwards Air has it. Buggie111 (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hate dragging conversations on forever, so I've settled for asking for it from the closest library that has it, which is University of Denver Penrose. Buggie111 (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you at? Your ILL people will ask for it from whoever is closest or has a copy available.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Penrose is the closeest, but IDK about Edwards. But, this settles it. Buggie111 (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for List of breastwork monitors of the Royal Navy
nominate
) 00:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre
I'm working on expanding the article on the Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre, and I was wondering that with your extensive experience with naval articles, you might be able to look over my version of the article (which is here) and tell me what I might need to do to get it to a B class article. I would really appreciate it. Bernstein2291(Talk • Contributions • Sign Here) 06:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completeness is going to be, I think, your biggest problem. See ARA Moreno for one example, although it is more complete than you'd need for B-class. You're going to need more on what the ship did in British and Chilean service, so you're going to need to dig to find that out. Books on British battleships will take care of the technical history. I'd recommend Burt's British Battleships of WWI for the best coverage of a ship's activities which may suffice to cover that well enough. I expect that her story in Chilean service is going to be the hardest thing to discover. Use Google Books and newspaper archives to supplement whatever you can find. If you read Spanish you're in better shape than most of us so be sure see what has been published about her in Chile. Most of the reference books commonly used are very expensive so I'd advise borrowing them from Inter-Library Loan through your public or university library. You're also going to need to have at least one citation per paragraph to meet the referencing requirement. Good luck.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scheina's Latin America is also good if you're interested in ships from the region. - Dank (push to talk) 18:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I was looking at the mainspace article. I don't think Benninghof is reliable because he doesn't cite any sources. I'd like to know why he says that Almirante Cochrane was going to be named India; I can't find anything that says as much, though I haven't seriously looked. At any rate that bit should be saved for the class article; this one's pretty strictly about the ship. See if you can find out more about her WWI service as well as her post-Sailor's Revolt history. Your citations are sufficient, but their form needs improvement if I was going to quibble.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to say references. The only thing about cites is that everything must be consistent or at least logical.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to bet Bennighoff got the India idea from Breyer in Battleships and battle cruisers, 1905–1970; he's the one behind the idea of a second Tiger that was to be named Leopard.
[majestic titan] 18:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
The more I hear about these sorts of fantasies the less I'm motivated to try and hunt down a copy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Coordinator of the Military history Project, September 2010-September 2011
Congrats on your election as Coordinator of the Military history Project! In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rod, my sources specify BL rather than QF for the guns on the Minotaur, but QFs are BL by definition so it probably doesn't matter. Now I am trying to ID some 5-inch BL guns from the 1860s. I'm leaning towards the idea that they were the 70-pdr Armstrong BL guns that supposedly were never issued, according to Lambert, but would like a bit more confirmation. Only a few ships received them, which sorta supports the idea that they were the 70-pdrs. Any thoughts?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, yes indeed QF guns were technically still breechloaders, but they represented a huge improvement over the existing (i.e. 1880s) British BL guns in the ability to deliver firepower - a whole new generation - so I think the distinction needs to be made. See Template:VictorianEraBritishNavalWeapons for what I've tried to make a complete list of all British "approved" service weapons of this period.. based on official British manuals etc. There would have been many new weapons being evaluated at any time but as far as I know Britain would not have trusted in action anything not in that template, not after the stuffup with Lancaster guns in the Crimea. The only 5-inch breechloader in official service I'm aware of was the 1880s model quickly replaced by the QF 4.7 inch. The RBL 40 pounder Armstrong of 1860 was 4.75 inch and remained in service quite a while, it was found useful, and was called "BL" in at that time. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are entries in Holley that give the Armstrong 70-pdr a diameter of 5 or 5.5 inches so I'm pretty sure that the references are not to the 40-pdr.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps at all, the main difference between QF and BL was in the charge. QF guns used a metal cartridge that could be a 1 piece shell, BL guns usually used a cloth cartridge and were almost always separate cartridge and shells. The main difference was in the seal at the breech end; a QF shell was shaped to seal the breech itself, a BL breech mechanism needed to be sealed manually (ie a screw or sliding block breech). Note that this is an extremely simplistic explanation and the British tended to produce enough guns to break the logic once in a while. Ranger SteveTalk 21:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, I agree and have moved those articles that needed it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Goeben
We made it. Many thanks for helping finish the article, especially with OSN etc. This round's on me ;) Parsecboy (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Cheers! <lip-smacking noises> Now, what to do for an encore? Breslau's a possibility as are the WW2 German ships. I'll be tied up for the rest of the month with the Cup, I expect, but I'm open to ideas for afterwards.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually had the same idea about Breslau. I'm working on a draft of
Bismarck class battleship in a sandbox here, if you're interested. Let me know once you've won the Cup, and we'll figure another project out. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Eventually we'll run out of the sexy stuff like BB/BCs and be reduced to Operation Middleweight (cruisers), Lightweight (destroyers) and Flyweight (DEs); no point in waiting until then to work on some smaller fry. I've got some good stuff on the wreck of the Bismarck that I can hopefully contribute.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't wait on us; I'm going to be pretty well tied up with the Cup for this next month. IIRC, the pursuit article is actually in pretty good shape; probably only needs a bit of expansion and sourcing to be ready for GA.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a magazine (Military History) article on the pursuit, but I think it's been sucked into the void. I'll get onto it (the division article) when I find time. Buggie111 (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
XavierGreen seems to have added SMS Lorely to the division lineup. I don't remember running into it, so I'd like your thoughts. Buggie111 (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look in the FAC for Goeben; I think that he mentioned it there as a yacht or something in Constantinople.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should I put it in the FT draft? Buggie111 (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what exactly it did, so I can't say for sure.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While we're on the subject of impressive achievements, I created a mock-up for the British BC GT box here, it'll be ready to go as soon as the list passes FLC. Excellent work on these articles so far, even if it's pretty disappointing how many problems you've run into at FAC with them. Speaking of that, what happened to Indefatigable's second run? I saw you had put it up the other day and was planning on reviewing it, but I see now that it was archived and the nomination page deleted. Parsecboy (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I see what happened. Why not try asking permission to run Indefatigable with Dank? I know it's really annoying, but hopefully it'll be worth the trouble. Karen certainly seems to be reasonable. Parsecboy (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd nominated Indefatigable with Dank after Goeben got promoted and then asked Karanacs if I could submit Borodino-class as a solo after Princess Royal was sent down (again!), thinking that co-noms were different than solo noms, and got denied on Borodino and Sandy pulled Indefatigable as well. I don't see the issue on the co-nom, but I'm thinking that I got caught in the fallout over a nom that another Cup participant had had archived and they wanted to be seen as evenhanded, although I don't believe that the situations were comparable. I'm OK with my solo nom being denied, although I think it was a bit harsh under the circumstances, but upset about the co-nom where I got screwed.
I'm way ahead of you; I got a bit excited last night when Repulse was reviewed so quickly and I did up my own on the same lines: User:Sturmvogel 66/Sandbox/2. But I do have to say that I have a better picture! Thanks for thinking of me, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mail
Finally sorted my email out. Hope it worked! Ranger SteveTalk 20:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2010 September newsletter
We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight.
WikiCup talk page
.
Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open.
Fox and The ed17 23:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
It's all in the details....
You should have caught this on all of the notifications: [2]. You were advertising the old archived nom! -MBK004 05:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oooops! I'd really prefer not to leave everything to the WikiGnomes, but stuff like this makes me think that I should.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And again, here you have left some more clean-up. Here are my clean-up diffs: [3] and [4] -MBK004 06:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for HMS Defence (1861)
nominate
) 18:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: FTCs
When topics are failed, I've noticed that when the articlehistory is added, adding in the GTCfailed doesn't need to happen, that can just be removed. I'll modify the procedures to take that out. I'll promote the other topics as soon as I can. I was going to knock most of those still up out this weekend, should be a lot easier now that you've handled a few. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 21:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Greco-Persian Wars one, i don't really have an opinion on the topic itself. If you're up to supporting or opposing, by all means do so; right now it's too deadlocked to pick any, more input is needed from some FT regulars. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 21:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
re: Norwegian monitors
Hey Sturmvogel,
Yep, I found quite a lot on the various monitors. I'll get on it tomorrow, or on Sunday, depends on the weather. What I can say regarding the class is that Thomassen states (p. 12) that Mjølner, Trudvang and Thor were all "built using plans by John Ericsson himself". Mjølner was built in Sweden, the other two in Norway. What I notice is that while Mjølner and Trudvang 100% identical, down to the last detail, Thor is about 500 tons bigger than the other two. Maybe Thor is a development on the first two? The source doesn't say. Manxruler (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no hurry, maybe I'll just copy over the stats from Mjølner to Trudvang to jump-start that article since it's a John Ericsson-class ship. All of my sources agree that Thor was larger, but I wasn't sure if that was correct without checking against Norwegian sources. It's quite probable that she might have the same relation to Trudvang as did Loke to the other John Ericsson-class monitors. Hmm, note to self, compare the dimensions of the two ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the stats for the various Norwegian later today, just got to go for a hike in the sunshine first. Having just reread Thomassen, I see that he says that Skorpionen was also a John Ericsson-designed ship. Seems like she was a slightly earlier version of the latter three ships. Manxruler (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hey there Strum. I noticed that you promoted SMS Szent István to a GA a while back and you did a really good job at it. Some of the info from that article I used on the other ship's articles from the Tegetthoff-class. Sokol's book mentions the ship a bit, especially her sinking. I remember that you said that either Sokol or Greger is needed to get any AH BB to A or FA class and is recommended for GA so I was wondering, care to do a joint nom on this article for an ACR? I think that this article can go a long way and I was also considering it as a contender for an FA since me and Buggie need at least 10 FA's out of the 19 articles that encompass the AH BB topic in order to get it to a FT. So are you up for it?--White ShadowsYour guess is as good as mine 19:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of which we have 9 left. We could take the Habsburg and Karl class articles through FAC, as they might pass (unlike their lazy ship articles), but they might not. Also Strum, I've got Mclaughlin on ILL, so I should get it in the next few weeks. Buggie111 (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lemme think about it; I'm kinda tied up right now with the Cup.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. If we can get it through ACR (It could very well pass soon) and then FAC, that's another 100 points for you and me. (It will help you more than me as you have the best shot from OMt at winning, I may come in 5th or 4th) Just think about it. I'll likely need your assistance or at least your permission to nominate it and get it passed. I'll start adding in Sokol today. Buggie, while me and Strum (or just me if Strum declines) work on Szent István, you can get to work on the Tegetthoff class article. I'll add in some of Sokol's book about the sinking of the Szent István into the text when I can. I hope to get this topic of BB's at GTC by the end of the year. :)--White ShadowsYour guess is as good as mine 20:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It won't pass FAC before the Cup is over. I have other articles queued up ahead of it for the Cup.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EOY sounds reasonable, if you mean GTC and not FTC. RL is a bit more busy for me (midterms) so I'm gonna have to but the Tegett's on a short hold, hopefully in which you can saturate it with Sokol. Which makes me wonder WS: What do you want to do after the austrian FTC? Turkey? The Petropavlovsk class (only suggesting this because I have boatloads of info on the RJ war)? The Kriegsmarine offer you made ten billion years ago? U-boats? Italy? Many doors are open. Buggie111 (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my butting in, but I'd recommend taking Italy on, I think it's probably our biggest gap as far as the larger navies go, and it's a good opportunity for expansion. Turkey would be a good option as well, the seized Turkish dreadnoughts should be relatively easy to improve, and Yavuz is already an FA, and WS has the list just about all wrapped up. Parsecboy (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once we get the AH BB's at GTC or maybe FTC, I think that I'll focus on Italy. i'm actually going to Rome in like a week or two so Perhaps I'll buy some sources from a book store or something. I've learned a lot after working on the AH BB's. I need to get all my sources together before we get into serious work on them. Turkey can be an easy side project between Buggie and I, Parsec for getting the German ships to FA and GA class and whoever works on the British Ships. I think that I'm going to focus on Italy more though. I've already started on the list for them and as an added bouns, I'm a quarter Italian!--White ShadowsYour guess is as good as mine 21:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strum's taking the British BC's, and i might do casual work on them when I feel like it. Sure, Italy sounds great. Have fun on your trip. Buggie111 (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be gone from Thursday to Monday. (Not this week, next week) I'll be missing 3 days of school....great. Anyway, back on topic. Just think about it Strum. If so, I'll start work on the article and submit it to ACR once my Turkish List is accepted.--White ShadowsYour guess is as good as mine 22:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Sturmvogel 66 for their great efforts in the September 2010
Military History monthly article writing Contest, placing first with a total of 254 points from 42 articles. Well done! Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 3 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 05:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Russian battleship Ekaterina II for things which need to be addressed. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 05:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 22:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 22:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
I apologize in advance for being suspiciously-minded, but I feel like I should ask. Is it just coincidence that the GAN Drive has been set up to coincide exactly with the last stage of the Wikicup that you're participating in? My suspicions were roused when I looked over to the Cup and saw that you're narrowly in the lead, thanks to some of the Good Article's you've nominated to GAN. You do seem to be the main benefactor from this drive, what with the 20+ articles you've nominated in the past week or so, and you did set it up. To be clear, I don't care for the Wikicup, and actually find the rivalry in it rather bizarre, and a discredit to the concept, and I do enjoy reviewing articles at GAN as a way to get back into the flow of things. But this does look awfully suspicious from where I'm standing. Was the GAN Drive scheduled specifically for October - and who scheduled it exactly? Skinny87 (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed it, specifically to coincide with the last month of the Cup, and the rest of the coordinators seemed to think that it was a good idea. You can read all the discussion on the coordinators talk page. It's not quite working the way that I thought that it would because Jim Sweeney, myself and several other people made a lot more reviews last month than I expected that drove down our usual running total of 35–40 articles without reviews down to 23 at the start of the month, most of which were mine. And not many people have submitted new articles for review so the imbalance looks even worse. But I'll remind you that articles from other sections of the GAN list count if they're tagged as belonging to MilHist. Some of the royal and noble biographical articles probably belong to us and there may be others as well. I'm hoping that some of the usual suspects like Parsecboy and Cpladakis will submit articles sometime this month to take advantage of the drive, but I have no idea if they have anything ready or not.
I think that the Cup is worthwhile, although I don't understand how people can get so worked up about it, and I think that it needs some revisions to make it less likely to overload the various assessment projects like GAN and DYK. But I'm a very prolific writer anyway and I can't say that it's made any real difference to my output other than I've chosen to write stuff to maximize my points from the Cup. I've been stockpiling B-class articles this entire year with the expectation that there would be another general GAN backlog elimination drive like the one that they had in April that would be timed to coincide with the last month of the Cup, but had to organize one for MilHist when the WP:WPGA people declined to run another one so soon after their last one.
If all this sticks in your craw I'll understand if you choose not to review any more of my articles, but I'll be disappointed because you usually bring up very good points that I might have glossed over or not fully explained. But I'd encourage you to review other people's articles, even outside MilHist as you usually identify weak points that improve the article once corrected. The same cannot be said of all reviewers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the flattery, it always works :) I realize that my initial post seems a tad too harsh, and after reading your response and the Coordinator talkpage, I can see that it was cleared with the other coordinators. My main concern was that you were a rogue coordinator trying to abuse the MILHIST Drive system; I didn't think that was true, given that you've seemed fine in previous times we've met. So my concerns are allayed, and I apologize if I came off as too harsh. I'll continue to review GAs for the Drive as well! Skinny87 (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know how it looks, with my articles dominating the list and all, so I don't blame you a bit, especially if you weren't aware of the discussion among the coordinators. I'm glad to hear that you'll keep on reviewing as I have quite a few more articles to submit ;-) and I'd encourage you to polish a few of your own and submit them as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Sturmvogel 66. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page. Message added 18:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
DYK for HMS Valiant (1863)
nominate
) 06:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Brill Tramway
The articlehistories themselves look fine. Sometimes when an FTC is being promoted that has several GAs, it'll show as a GT for the first couple; if it doesn't fix itself a null edit to trip the system is all that's needed. However, you forgot to add the topic to Wikipedia:Featured topics and update the count. I'll do so now. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 15:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. Thanks for fixing it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
M734 Fuze Rating Review
I requested a review to upgrade the M734 Fuze article.
Thanks for the quick response.
You said as a start, one citation is needed per paragraph.
Being a newcomer to Wikipedia, can you guide me on how to cite a single reference twice in two paragraphs, but point to a different page for each?
Regards, George
A-Class reviews for the period 1 April-30 September 2010, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. Roger Daviestalk 07:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I have to be away for 48 hours, but will hopefully be back Thursday morning or perhaps even earlier. I'll complete your outstanding reviews then, although they're fine as they are; I just need time to process all of them. Skinny87 (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, enjoy your break.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EFF
I've nom'ed EFF for another FAC here. As you started the oppose trend (no offense), I'd like you to comment on her now. Buggie111 (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to pester you, but when you ahve time, could you please checkc this over? Buggie111 (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, calm down; I saw it, but I've got a lot going on right now and I'll look it over when I get a chance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sturmvogel, you do a lot of articles on Russian warships etc. I found an excellent source on merchant ships operated by Belgium. There are three pdf files, Ship names beginning A-G is the one that applies here. Search for "MT Elbrus" (p.112-13) for the fascinating history of a ship that was scuttled twice, and served in two world wars. That source should give you plenty of info to search for other sources with, should you take up the challenge of creating an article. Mjroots (talk) 07:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for French ironclad Richelieu
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Well yes I'm aware of that. I had five GAN reviews on the go: I signed up to do the review on 26 September 2010 which is timestamped on the GA1 page, but I did not start reviewing until 3 October which is clear from my edit history (see [[5]]). If you wish to strike it out on the basis of the timestamp that it up to you. Since it was my 318th
WP:GAN review since September your decision is somewhat irrelevant anyway. Pyrotec (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
No, that's fine. I didn't check the actual start date of your work. Thanks for all the reviews.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for HMS Folke
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I will get started on helping expand what you've already done. I'm going to check first to see if I have any more images. Cla68 (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great. I'm pretty well tapped out for sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added some source information to several of the images in Commons. I have a few more images to upload, then I'll get started on the article text. My editing time is much more limited now, but slowly but surely we'll get the article done. You've already done a really good job on it. Cla68 (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely no hurry. I'm just glad to see you haven't taken a complete Wikibreak.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for HMS Sköld
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Fate has plucked me from the computer chair at a most unnecesary time. Thus, I was wondering if you could finish the comments at Talk:Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895)/GA1 for GA credit? It's not going to be that hard, and I'd really like you to get her to GA in my absence.
Hey dude, if you have time, a question was raised in
[majestic titan] 18:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Szent István
Well like I said a few threads up, the Turkish list is now at A-class and also a FLC candidate so I'm ready to take Szent István to ACR. I doubt that you'll need to do any work on the article during the review so if I can just get your green light to let me nominate it.... (you did most of the writing while I added a bit here and there and added some more book citations ect.) What do you say?--White ShadowsYour guess is as good as mine 20:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't even thought about it. I'm not sure that it's really good enough for an ACR, but I haven't looked at whatever you've added yet.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added Sokol a bit. (I'm sure it would be needed for an ACR) If EFF passed an ACR, I'm 110% certain that this ship would as well.--White ShadowsYour guess is as good as mine 03:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying yes, I'm not saying no at this point as I still haven't looked at what you've added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Well I did not add in too much. A bit on the sinking and some citations/other minor things here and there. If there is anything else that is needed, just tell me :) I'll let you "sleep on it" and tell me about my offer when you've made up your mind.--White ShadowsYour guess is as good as mine 03:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)
I was just finishing up one of my own articles, so it was convenient.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changing OMT tallies.
I actually didnt know that A rating was higher than GA, but in any event, i was basing it on the rating in the upper right hand corner of the articles themselves, rather than looking at the cats. That is confusing to me, why list the article as GA in the corner when it actually is not GA? Bonewah (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not all projects recognize or use A-class so the bot that adds the little symbol doesn't deal with A-class articles. I think that there's a setting in your prefs where you can see the current rating, whatever it is, of an article listed underneath the title. It's kind of handy if you're trying to get a feel for a particular subject's coverage.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I am not sure if you were party to the (deleted) talk page, but did you see this image before? If it is the Indefatigable, it would then seem to be the best verifiably public domain image we have here and should be used in the article. I have asked Fastily, the admin who deleted the talk page, to copy the talk page's contents to Commons, so maybe more light can be shed on this. Jappalang (talk) 06:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the original identification is half-correct. The ship is either New Zealand or Australia. I've discussed the reasons for my identification on the picture's talk page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did either ship ever visit the States?
[majestic titan] 03:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
New Zealand did visit San Diego and Key West during Jellicoe's world tour in 1919-20 and might have made a brief visit in 1913 when she transited through the Panama Canal. Why?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From all the pictures I've gone through, the LOC only tends to have photos of foreign ships from when they visited the United States, ie.
[majestic titan] 15:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Maybe, because this photo was taken well before 1919 judging by the bridge and superstructure.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think New Zealand actually transited the Panama Canal when she called at Panama City from 29 August to 5 September. For the simple reason that the first ship didn't transit it until 1914 (so says Wikipedia anyway, I lost my copy of Path between the Seas years ago) I know that her Captain had a look at the canal, but considering the ship was cruising down the Western coast of the Americas it would have been a curious diversion to make. Other than Panama City, the only other quasi-American soil New Zealand visited in her 1913 cruiser was Honolulu, in July. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 17:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that, Simon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiCup 2010 Award for Topics
The WikiCup 2010 Award for Topics
Awarded to Sturmvogel_66, for outstanding content contributions during the 2010 WikiCup.
The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to TonyTheTiger (submissions), with 2260, and third to Casliber (submissions), with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists – White Shadows (submissions), William S. Saturn (submissions), Staxringold (submissions) and ThinkBlue (submissions). Also, congratulations to Sasata (submissions), who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.
Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is Casliber (submissions), for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is Staxringold (submissions), for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is Jujutacular (submissions), for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is TonyTheTiger (submissions), for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is Candlewicke (submissions), for nineteen articles in the news in round three.
The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the
The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Sturmvogel 66 for his tremendous effort in the October 2010
Military History monthly article writing Contest, placing first with a record-breaking total of 406 points from 69 articles. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
On behalf of the coordinators, I'm pleased to award you this barnstar for reviewing articles in our October 2010 Contest-- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats!
Congrats on your WikiCup win. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello, Sturmvogel 66. You have new messages at Supertouch's talk page. Message added 20:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Sturmvogel 66. You have new messages at Supertouch's talk page. Message added 20:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
I've replied (and fixed it all) to everything that you brought up and will get to the last 2-3 issues that another reviewer brought up tomorrow.--White ShadowsYour guess is as good as mine 01:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FOUR Award
I am not sure if you have been keeping up with nominating your
www.steelnavy.com/images/N&H12/NEP5224Izmail.JPG is verifiable on its origin and has further information on which source its author used to construct the plan (Siegfried Breyer according to the picture).
Either one should do; the photograph of the unfinished hull does not really help readers visualise the vessel although it is an authentic representation (i.e. real and not theorised). Jappalang (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media
).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a
bot
, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Hey Sturm, sorry to bother, but would you have the sources to write
[majestic titan] 01:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, but I'm not sure when I'll get around to it. I'm filling in the technical history of the Lexington-class carriers even as we write.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, whenever you can do it is fine, and of course you can have conom credit. Thanks man.
[majestic titan] 03:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I have somthing Ed, but IDK when I'll be able to use it. Buggie111 (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Help identifying a cruiser?
Hi, Sturm. The_ed17 has poked me in your direction following a question about HMAS Australia (D84). There's some USN images of the ship visiting New York in 1933, but Australia did not visit anywhere near that time. They think a source you have might help clear this up. More details at Talk:HMAS_Australia_(D84)#Misidentified_photos.3F. Thanks in advance. -- saberwyn 02:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey
Hey Mister Sturmvogel. I was wondering if I might ask for a favour? I have an article at a MILHIST A-Class Review here, and I was wondering if you might have time to comment on it? Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about the displacement figure? 88,000 tons seems an order of magnitude too high (and you have 8,617 tons in the infobox). Acroterion(talk) 01:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It do seem a might bit overstated, don't it? Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it was a "leadclad" that would simply absorb shellfire. Acroterion(talk) 02:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20th Mountain Army OB
Hey, thanks for that, really useful. I don't suppose the source had their geographical positions - or you know a source saying where they were, do you? Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 06:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a map of part of Norway showing deployments in late '44, but nothing in '45. I might have something that gives locations, but I'm not sure for what dates. What did you think about my idea about reworking the scope of the article?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I'd kindly disagree. Doomsday is about the 1st Airborne aspect of it, which has enough sources to be independent. Eventually I'll be able to write the main Apostle article which will be able to include details on the entire liberation, including of course what 1st Airborne did during their stay. But at the moment I'm focusing on Doomsday, and will be going to the British Library in the next few weeks to hopefully get some more information from the books they have. Skinny87 (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sturm. I've started the GA review for Colbert. The review page is here. Please take a look when you get a chance. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Amur class minelayer (1898)
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Simpler titles for two WW2 german assault guns' articles;
Hello. I am a user primarily focused on the Greek wikipedia. As I was wikifying and checking for i/w some articles there, I noticed two articles you have created here,
Sturmpanzer II. Should I make the move to the simpler and search-friendlier titles? --Dead3y3 (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Those are artificial names and not used by the Germans during the war, nor are they common names in English accounts.
Three British BC images, pp. 1124–1126, 1641–1642. There should be more in other editions of the magazine, and all are PD-1923.
[majestic titan] 08:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
A question for you
On 22 September 2010, you dropped a POV tag on Bob Graham (this edit). There was no discussion on the talk page. I took a look at your contributions on that date, to see if I could figure out from your other edits to identify the POV issue, but it appears that all of your other edits on that date relate to your (impressive) contributions to military history (both before and after the Graham edit). I went ahead and removed the tag, but I'm curious if the tagging was in error. Horologium(talk) 13:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No discussion, I just happened across the article which read like an extract from his campaign biography and did not present a balanced view of the man and his accomplishments. That's still true, though to a lesser extent, now. I mean, "known as the Education Governor"?! Stuff like that is pure campaign fluffery and needs to be cited at the very least, although I'd delete it myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
You have a valid point about our not knowing when that photo was taken, and I won't attempt a further revision on that point. I will agree that the photo is likely before the firing started, since Hood is not smoking from an early hit by Prinz Eugene. However, I have generally seen that photo captioned as being during the battle of the Denmark Strait, and if that were the case, then those guns could not have been engaged, because HMS Hood is still afloat in the photo. Until just before Hood exploded, both ships were on a heading that permitted only the forward guns to fire. Admiral Holland had ordered both ships to turn to port to bring all guns to bear, but Hood exploded before that was possible. Since Prince of Wales was under the same heading orders as Hood until that point, its aft guns could not have engaged the enemy while Hood was still afloat.
By the way, my source of information about my earlier contribution regarding the port side bridges on Akagi and Hiryu was another internet site, and it made sense to me. On the other hand, I could not see how the bridge locations would affect air traffic patterns for carriers without angled flight decks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.30.62.198 (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just reporting that I assessed HMS Neptune (1874), and have listed it as a Good Article. There is some feedback you may want to review in my assessment. Regards, Aeonx (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and your comments. I've linked "roller" so people will have a better understanding of what exactly is meant.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OMT in the Signpost
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on Operation Majestic Titan for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
Hi Sturmvogel 66, hope you're well. As an editor who has used the services of the
Guild of Copy Editors, I thought you might be interested in knowing that the Guild is currently holding elections for its coordinators. To view the discussion and voice your opinion, please visit the election page. Thanks! Lunalet (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Operation Doomsday ACR
Hi, Sturm. The Operation Doomsday ACR is due for closure. Currently there are a couple of opposes which would mean that it will probably need to be closed as unsuccessful. Looking at the article, though, I think these concerns might have been addressed but I'm not sure. Would you mind heading back over to the ACR and stating whether or not your oppose stands, or if you are neutral or support, etc? Sorry to bother you with this one, but I just want to clarify before I close the review. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sturmvogel 66. You have new messages at Talk:BGM-75 AICBM/GA1. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
DYK for Russian monitor Smerch
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hey, see my replies on my talk. Parsecboy (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for French cruiser Sully
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
United Provinces of South America over the possession of the Brazilian province of Cisplatina
(which had a mixed Portuguese and Spanish population). The problem is that is was never called "Argentina-Brazil War". An editor probably created this name for it.
Thus, I proposed the name to be changed for "Cisplatine War" because it is "the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources" (
Talk:Radioplane RP-77D/GA1. Message added 19:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice
at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Wikipedia Ambassador Program looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi Sturmvogel! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the
Online Ambassador
. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:French cruiser Sully for things which need to be addressed. CrowzRSA 01:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:HMS Pomone (1897) for things which need to be addressed. CrowzRSA 01:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
A-Class reviews for the period Oct–Dec 2010, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
I would appreciate your opinion about my proposal in
Talk:Peruvian_ironclad_Huáscar#Name_of_the_article. Best regards, --Keysanger 17:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Military historian of the Year 2010
The Golden Wiki
I am delighted to inform you that your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject have earned the title of "Military historian of the Year" for 2010. We're deeply grateful for all your help, and look forward to seeing more of your excellent work in the coming year. Kirill[talk][prof] 22:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Attacker class GA
Unfortunately, I probably won't get to it, so failing it is okay if there's no one else to look at it. Got FT upkeep all weekend to tackle. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 02:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's too bad, I thought you did a really nice job with the activities of the ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have begun the review for HMS Zealous (1864) and it is basically a Good Article. However, there are a few concerns that I would like clarified before the article is passed.
I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK, recognized your name and clicked on over to your user page to be blown away by the number of quality articles you have written. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassadorSadads (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for File:Krupp28cmHL12.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to
fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale
.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lets settle this here not to clutter T:TDYK. You take dates as "completed"="in service" without explaining this in the article. Many people would take "completed"="launched". The phrasing "were so defective when she was built that they had to be replaced five years after she was completed" only adds to confusion, which is why I proposed to shorten it. Materialscientist (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never have I ever thought that completed=launched. A simple comparison between launching and completed/commissioned dates for medium/large ships will show a year or more between the two dates (four years for this one). I mean how can a ship be in service without being completed? I think that perhaps you're getting wrapped around the axle on this issue, which I don't see as anything to be concerned about.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, the hardware could be fine, yet the ship not listed in service simply because it is not fit for a battle (no qualified crew, ammunition, etc.). Thus if you take "completed" as "in service" (in the hook) then this needs to be explained in the article, and perhaps with a reference. Further, I bolded the phrase above because it does read odd to me. If you think its just me, I'm fine to ask third opinion. Materialscientist (talk) 07:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even want to get into considerations if a ship is "in service" while conducting post-commissioning sea trials and refits, which is where you're headed. I've changed the hook once again, see if it works for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, its Ok with me now, but please check my optional ALT1 at
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi there and thanks for the pleasure you gave me for the reading of the story of the Petr Veliky ironclad. I have very few suggestions to bring it to GA status. Hopefully you will agree with me. I will leave 7 days for your review and fixing. If you are faster, better. Just drop a line in my talk page when you are ready. Take care and thanks again! --Brunswick Dude (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for HMS Achilles (1905)
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I wasn't aware that the oldid was required and I thought that the page number defaulted to 1.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The former is required to link the reviewed version of the article in the banner. The latter is required to link the GA review to the banner, for when it's no longer transcluded on the talk page. Neither default, so they have to be manually entered. When not included, it is added to a category, which is currently part of the big site-wide backlog drive. :)
I agree that there needs to be a discussion to reach a consensus. The changes I'd like to make have already been made in my previous edits. In fact, I edited the article unmolested for quite a while and dozens of times before it was reverted wholesale by my fellow editors all without at least discussing their specific objections with me. Now, these editors can simply sit back and not even bother with discussing the changes and be comfortable with the article's current state, which is precisely how it was before I labored to put in my edits. Besides, I'd take pages upon pages of specifics to even express the changes I want. Is there a more expedient way of discussing a consensus version?Mythbuster2010 (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, no. It is a laborious process, but it's best done there unless you wish to get even more deeply involved in a edit war. I'd suggest that you lay out your proposed changes for discussion in small batches. If nobody objects or even comments then go ahead and make those changes, but you need to give people time, at least 5 days, to comment. Also watch out for loaded words like glowingly and gently. They're fine if you're quoting a source, but give the appearance of POV-pushing if using them in your own writing. It's important to remember that your own opinions on the subject are irrelevant; you need to find reliable sources that say something close to what you think. And it's a really good idea to include sources that disagree with you and your favored sources to give a balanced perspective.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten three conflicting requests for the main page featured article for February 24. Would you be terribly upset if I picked a different date than the one you requested for Indefatigable? Raul654 (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The BushrangerOne ping only 05:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on February 24, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 24, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk·contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ۩۞ 19:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vice-Admiral Sir David Beatty's Battlecruiser Fleet, she was hit several times in the first minutes of the "Run to the South", the opening phase of the battlecruiser action. Shells from the German battlecruiser Von der Tann caused an explosion ripping a hole in her hull, and a second explosion hurled large pieces of the ship 200 feet (61 m) in the air. Only three of the crew of 1,017 survived. (more...
)
Hey, congrats on getting Indefatigable on the main page on the centenary of her commissioning! Parsecboy (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, we both need to watch out for more opportunities over the next few years. Lots of centenary anniversaries coming up.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HMS Hood
Just a note to say good work on the article. I reckon it could go to A class. Dapi89 (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's nice to hear. I need to get one book cited in the article and see if it has any other useful info and then I'll send it up to ACR and FAC. Hopefully it will clear all that by the time the anniversary of its sinking comes around.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the upcoming GAN backlog drive. I ask since I see you're an active reviewer, but also because I know you managed the October drive for MILHIST, and getting that project to help here could potentially wipe out the backlog completely. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 17:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
DYK for HMS Greyhound (H05)
nominate
) 06:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
DYK for HMS Gallant (H59)
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi Sturmvogel, in case you haven't seen it, Norman Friedman's new book British Cruisers: Two World Wars and After might be of interest to you - it was released a couple of weeks ago. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nick. I've seen it advertised, but haven't had a chance to look through it yet. At this moment it's probably a bit too rich for my blood, but I'll have to see if I can borrow it through Inter-Library Loan once I go back to British cruisers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for HMS Grenade (H86)
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I just wanted to let you know that I am having discussions with the
Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM. Regards, The Land (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
That sounds great, count me in.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for HMS Hostile (H55)
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:HMS Gipsy (H63) for things which need to be addressed. CrowzRSA 04:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
DYK nomination of HMS Hotspur (H01)
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Harriastalk 22:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
Hey, just checking to see if your concerns were addressed at that FLC, since you had your support crossed out there. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 16:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine; I'd lined through the wrong thing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any particular reason why you dropped the assessments on SMS Frithjof, SMS Heimdall and SMS Beowulf from C-class to stub? They're clearly C-class material. Brad (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From a quick glance, I'd say because there is very little prose. I'd say those are start-class at best...
[majestic titan] 07:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
No, Ed. {{WikiProject Ships|class=start|B1=n|B2=n|B3=y|B4=y|B5=y}} = C-class. It fails for B1=inline citations and B2=completeness; and meets B3=structure, B4=grammar/spelling and B5=Infobox. Brad (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't even look at the talk page history for the specific criteria. Whether stub/start/C, I don't see how it meets B3 -- there is no information on the ship's career!
[majestic titan] 08:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Brad, I was a little too focused on adding the infoboxes and clearing that backlog. On further reflection, I agree that all three are C-class for Ships and start for MilHist.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2011 February newsletter
So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions) (first, with 487 points) and Hurricanehink (submissions) (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. Casliber (submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to Jarry1250 (submissions) for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to Stone (submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.
Some news for those who are interested- March will see
a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive
, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.
Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
Hi -- Just wanted to say thanks for the very speedy review. It's the first article I've put forward for GA and I'd expected rather a drawn-out process.
As long as your articles are of a similar quality, I'd expect no troubles at all. Hope to see more from you soon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GA Reviews
Well...I don't have a clue as to what happened but 3 of your articles have all been failed even though I listed them as pass, and I was wondering what the heck to do as I don't have a clue. Thurgate (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All four show as GAs, so I don't know what happened.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well you could always just put them up for review again and I can just pass them? Thurgate (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
(sorry its me again :D) I've just recently put this article up for a GA review and the person reviewing it has questioned whether I need the damage details she suffered during her engagement with Bismarck (review is here) and I was wondering if you could spare a few minutes to take a look at the article and give your opinion on the matter. Thanks in advance. Thurgate (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GA Red Line
Many thanks for reviewing the article. Have you completed your initial review or are you planning more initial comments? If the former, consider changing the status to onhold. I will make the suggested changes, but it may take a few days because I want to consult with someone and borrow a book that covers Metro history from him. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done with my comments. I generally don't bother to put reviews on hold, no matter how long things take, but I can do so without any problems. I'm not in any hurry to close the review so take your time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need to put on hold. I will get to work. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you talk a look and give me some feedback. I am willing to do more, but would like some guidance. Racepacket (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I obtained the book tonight and have expanded the history sections of the metro lines at User:Racepacket/WMATA. After I get comments from another editor, I will post them in the article space and we can work toward completing the reviews. Thank you for your cooperation. Racepacket (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the history section. Please let me know what you think. Racepacket (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GA note
Thanks for the update, it didn't pop up on my watchlist. I'll take a look at your comments and reply to them shortly! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It will take until the weekend to get the book I want. Could you read the article again with what we have so far? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harvard citation
The reason for having a year (date) entry is to differentiate author works by date; for example if Walter Boyne wrote two different books, it is most likely that the copyright date can be used to distinguish the individual source. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Oh, I'm aware of the reason, I just think that it's a waste of space if you don't have multiple books by the same guy in your article or paper--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Then you get into the stickinesss of making up your own style guide which Wikiwackiness allows but just makes another diversion from the norm. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's some talk of closing this one. I generally wait until we're getting near the end before I copyedit ... are we near the end? - From another who lives to serve, - Dank (push to talk) 04:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel the article is incomplete as it only addresses the RN's role. I don't like to formally oppose when it's so close to meeting all criteria, but I may have to prevent a favorable closing, which I don't feel that it deserves. Kirk's comments haven't been addressed either, I'll note.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm glad I held off, sounds like there's more to do. - Dank (push to talk) 04:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Big favor
Hey. Would you be able to promote some of the older topics over at
WP:GTC that have consensus? I'm completely backlogged on my end with rl and ga drive stuff and you're the only other person with experience in promoting them. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 03:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I've been ignoring my responsibilities over there of late, but I can get to them tomorrow.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For failed/withdrawn nominations, I usually don't bother updating the article history, since it's not mandatory to note them. you can update the article history the same way successful ones are done, however, by using the actionx=GTC, actionxresult=Not promoted, and that should work out fine. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 04:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that there might be an equivalent GTC procedure, but I wasn't sure. I don't think that I'll bother myself, as there's plenty of promotions to do yet. It would sure be nice if we could somehow access the edit function of the talk page directly like on a GAN as we do all this stuff.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Vauchamps
Hello, sorry about my lack of reaction to your comments. I've been very busy lately and had very little time for wikipedia. I'll tackle the issues that you brought up as soon as I can, by the end of this week at the latest.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I was just getting concerned because you hadn't either responded or edited the article yet.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of my comments from Harrier GA page
Can you please explain this edit where you with absolutely no explanation removed my comment?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept my apologies, I was reading the page on my iPad and must have brushed something inadvertently on the touchscreen. I'll restore your comments momentarily.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry for the delay I've made on the review, but I've made some changes and believe it's ready to be passed, but I have one question, which can be found on the review page. CrowzRSA 18:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Vauchamps Good Article
Thanks for your feedback about the article! It is great to see it promoted to GA status. Hope we can work together in the future on other articles about the captivating era of Emperor Napoleon. Best regards,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to review any more of your articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-1 for things which need to be addressed. Harrison49 (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
MiG-1
I added a slight detail. Dapi89 (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi Sturmvogel. Could you have a look at the ships of the French
Bougainville class? The articles appear to be somewhat oddly named by a now banned user. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
That is odd; the PG designations look like US style, although they're used on a ship lost before the US entered the war. I've renamed all of them to French aviso XX. Thanks for catching that. Oh, and thanks for the help on HMS Agamemnon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it confused me too. Strange stuff. Thanks for cleaning that up, great work as always. On HMS Agamemnon, I can't recall ever editing any of those articles. Thanks anyway. :) Manxruler (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was you helping out, but obviously not. Feel free to point out any other little anomalies like these that you notice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. By the way, I think SS City of Flint should be moved to SS City of Flint (year of launch). I understand she was launched in 1919. Manxruler (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you've got information that says so, feel free. I don't have anything on merchant ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have reviewed HMS Lord Nelson (1906) and placed it on hold for up to seven days with some small concerns. You can see my review here: Talk:HMS Lord Nelson (1906)/GA1. Hmmm... looking at your talk page though, it seems like I'm the only jerk who puts your article on hold. Oh well, haha. CanadianPaul 16:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally pretty quick to response to reviews so I'm not sure that there's a real point in formally placing them on hold. But that's up to you. My motto is Semper Gumby, or is it I live to serve? I forget.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GAN for Vought F6U Pirate
Hello. I reviewed your article Vought F6U Pirate as a Good Article Nominee, and placed the review on hold pending resolution of a few concerns. You can find the review here. –Grondemar 21:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your timely responses; with all my concerns addressed I have passed your article as a Good Article. Congratulations! –Grondemar 01:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You were a bit quick off the mark there! Would you mind re-assessing now that I've expanded the article as much as I can from sources I have to hand? Mjroots (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That will teach you to build the talk page before you finish the article itself. I always leave the talk page until the end.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Sturmvogel 66! Just came to let you know I'll be reviewing this article's nomination. Please remember to check up here regularly, in case I notice anything which needs addressing. Thanks! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Russian battleship Andrei Pervozvanny
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi Sturmvogel, I've noticed you've been moving ships of the line, and I see you brought this up for discussion before without attracting many comments. Apologies for missing it the first time, but I've
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions). Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily on military history, favouring Naval warfare.
Casliber (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
Sasata (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
ThinkBlue (submissions). Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
TonyTheTiger (submissions). Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago.
White Shadows (submissions). Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
Staxringold (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
William S. Saturn (submissions). Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.
Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions) said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. 
Arsenikk (submissions) did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to 
Ian Rose (submissions), who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to 
Stone (submissions
.png)
.jpg)
