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

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Instructions

Requesting a review

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

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

Restrictions

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

Commenting

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

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

Comments Reviewing by Username

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

Support / Oppose Comments reviewing by Username

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

Comments Reviewing by Username addressed / not addressed

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

Requesting a review to be closed

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

After A-Class

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

Demotion

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

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

Current reviews

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

Gray Stenborg

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

Gray Stenborg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It has been a little while since I was last here, but up for nomination here is another one of New Zealand's lesser known flying aces of the Second World War. He joined up the year after the war started and flew over German-occupied Europe and also in the Siege of Malta. The article was the subject of a successful GA nomination back in mid-2021, and I have freshened it up a little for this A-Class review. Thanks in advance to all those who stop by with their comments. Zawed (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

Support. Looks good to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, much appreciated. Zawed (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Nick-D

This article is in good shape. I'd like to offer the following comments. Please note that I'll be travelling for the next week, and I'll follow up when I get home:

• "and he later flew with No. 111 Squadron, and during his time there destroyed four German aircraft" - I'd suggest splitting this into a separate sentence

• Done. Zawed (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• "He destroyed several aircraft during his time on Malta, returning to Europe in late August 1942" - I'd suggest replacing "Europe" with "the UK" or similar here to be more specific

• Done. Zawed (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• " the only son of Gunnar Stenborg, a Swedish emigrant to New Zealand, and his wife Ruby" - was Ruby also a migrant?

• Probably not, but I don't have a specific source to that effect. I have added her maiden name. Zawed (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• The first para of the "Second World War" section says he was trained on "Blackburn Baffin and Vickers Vildebeest aircraft" but was only later selected for pilot training: should this be tweaked to say that he was assessed for suitability for pilot training on those type of aircraft or similar? The current wording is a bit confusing.

• I've rephrased this a bit, using the specific ranks mentioned in the source. Zawed (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• "and engaged in the RAF's Circus offensive" - I'd suggest noting what this involved

• Have added a little here. Zawed (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• "then on 30 April shot down another two Fw 190s, near Andres and Abbeville respectively" - was this on the same sortie?

• Source (Shores & Williams) doesn't specify if this was the case. Zawed (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• "Stenborg was soon joined" - this is a bit unclear given the para covers about a month

• Have rephrased this. Zawed (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Was it typical for RAF pilots to be rotated through Malta as quickly as Stenborg was?

• Hmm, I hadn't thought about that, his service there was less than three months. There is nothing explicit in the sources but he had survived being shot down earlier a couple of weeks before he left the island. Perhaps combat fatigue was a factor. I've added a "reaction" quote from Cull & Galea. Zawed (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• The first sentence of "Service with No. 91 Squadron" is a bit long

• Broke this one up. Zawed (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• "No. 91 Squadron and 188 " - something like "Nos. 91 and 188 Squadrons" is more common. The squadron number also appears to be wrong here, and this should be a reference to No. 185 Squadron. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oops, obviously my phrasing is not clear here but that is actually referring to total number of operational flights. I have rephrased for clarity. Zawed (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• @Nick-D: thanks for the feedback, I have responded to the various comments above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

HF

Please ping me when Nick-D's comments have been addressed and I will review. Hog Farm _Talk 04:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: I have responded to Nick's comments and am now waiting his feedback. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Pendright

• Placeholder - Pendright (talk) 06:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Maximiliano Hernández Martínez

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): PizzaKing13 (talk)

Maximiliano Hernández Martínez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is my third A-class nomination and my first biography nomination. Maximiliano Hernández Martínez was El Salvador's longest serving president, being in office from 1931–1934 and 1935–1944. He rose to power after a coup d'état that established El Salvador's 48-year-long military dictatorship that lasted until 1979. Due to the duration of his presidency, the things he did as president, and the impact he left on El Salvador's history, MHM has had a lot written about him. While he is at least somewhat known in El Salvador, as far as I can see he is not at all known outside of Latin America. I have the goal of making the article of every Salvadoran president as good as it can possibly be (I'm a long ways from achieving that at the moment), and so I want to try to get this article to A-class since I personally believe it stands the best chance out of any president's article of reaching this assessment. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 05:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Zhao Chongguo

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk)

Zhao Chongguo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My first A-Class nomination! I'm nominating this article because I think it fits the A-class criteria, and does a pretty good job at giving a broad overview of Zhao's life - thanks to the Book of Han and Dreyer's posthumously published monograph on him. This article is a fun look at ancient Chinese military history, which I haven't seen much of on here. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi Generalissima, saving a spot here. As some initial comments, would you consider adding the DOIs for Loewe 1978 and Tse 2018 (10.1017/CHOL9780521243278.004 and 10.4324/9781315532332 respectively)? These are the only two sources without DOIs. Also, the full title for Loewe 1978 is "The Former Han Dynasty", consider adding the suffixing article? Loewe 1978 is also the only source where we've not added the editors, who are Loewe and Denis Twitchett. Consider adding? I will post my full comments soon. Matarisvan (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Matarisvan: Apologies for my tardiness here - Done! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Generalissima, here goes my complete prose review:

• In the infobox, consider linking Shanggui to Tianshui?
• Add the age parameter in the infobox?
• BC and CE dates should have nbsp templates per MOS:NBSP.
• Standardize on using either BC or BCE.
• "unfitting": "unfit" might be better and more grammatically correct?
• Consider writing "the Wusun people" instead of just "the Wusun" to comply with NOFORCELINK? Also, consider doing this for the first mentions of the Qiang in the body and lead?
• "Lingju had been recently fallen": remove the "been"?
• "alliance to attack on the city": remove the "on"?
• We have glossed the tutian as farming garrisons, but the article on this method says it used settler farmers/colonists. Why have we deviated from the article's description? Do the sources prefer our approach?
• Ref #2 uses pp. but there is only one page being cited.

That's all from me. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

Well outside my area of expertise, so I am just a casual reviewer here. The article is well-written, and has my support

• A map would be nice. I had to click on links to find out where events were, since my geography of China is very poor.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Image review - pass

Only three images:

• File:Zhao Chongguo, Gu Shengxian Xiang Zhuanlüe (cropped).png - 1830 image - copyright expired - PD - okay

• File:Ten mounted soldiers, China, Western Han dynasty, 206 BC - 24 AD, painted earthenware - Royal Ontario Museum - DSC04016.JPG - CC0 1.0 - okay

• File:HanXuanDi.jpg - 1607 image - copyright expired - PD - okay

⇒ All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Source review - pass

• The article/list is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.

• The ISBNs have two different formats (okay at A-Class, at FAC you would have to change one or more.)

• Spot checks:

• 3, 8, 22, 23, 40 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Arkansas Post (1863)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Battle of Arkansas Post (1863) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Vicksburg-related, but a bit off the beaten path. In late 1862, Union political general John A. McClernand convinced Lincoln to allow him to recruit troops and then take that force down the Mississippi River to operate against Vicksburg. Neither Grant nor Henry Halleck (the Union general in chief) particularly trusted McClernand, so they engaged in some machinations that resulted in Sherman taking command of McClernand's force and leading it downriver while McClernand was still in Illinois. By the time McClernand is able to rejoin the army, Sherman had already been repulsed at Chickasaw Bayou. Indepedently, Sherman and McClernand had decided to reduce the pesky Confederate position at Arkansas Post, also known as Fort Hindman. There is a meeting with Admiral Porter, who also loathed McClernand, and the force is off up the Arkansas River. The Union forces began landing on January 9, 1863, formed into position the next day, and a combined naval bombardment and land assault occurred on January 11. Surrender flags began to appear over parts of the Confederate line in uncertain and unathorized circumstances, and after a confusing set of events, the Confederates surrendered. Grant did not approve of the operation (although Sherman and Porter later changed his mind) and ordered McClernand back to the Mississippi River. Grant took command from McClernand on January 30, setting the stage for the better known stages of the Vicksburg campaign. Hog Farm _Talk 02:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Nick-D

I find articles about this period in the US Civil War to be very interesting. I'd like to offer the following comments:

• In general, the lead seems a bit wordy. Some specific examples are below, but I'd suggest simplifying this more broadly.
• "a fort known as Fort Hindman" - do you need "a fort known as"?
• "and machinated start the riverine movement" - the grammar seems off here
• "However, Major General Henry Halleck," - say what position Halleck held when he's introduced.
• It would also be desirable to have a description of the Union chain of command, as the current material is confusing. An organisation chart showing who reported to who might be a good way of summarising this (and could be used across multiple articles).
• The description of the battle is very detailed. I'd suggest not adding further detail before this goes to FAC, and you could look for opportunities to streamline the text a bit. Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I've made some cuts to the lead. I'll take a look at streamlining the body this weekend; I imagine that some of the references to individual sub-units by name are not necessary. I'll see what I can do with some sort of organizational explanation. Hog Farm _Talk 01:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to be offline for most of the next week, but I will try to come up with something clearer for the Union chain of command. Which won't be the easiest thing, because a lot of the McClernand mess that makes this so confusing was backchannel politicking that wasn't strictly by the book. Hog Farm _Talk 03:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

No worries. Text explaining that the command structure was a total mess would also do the job here. As I understand it, this wasn't unusual for armies in the American Civil War. Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

This is still on my radar - work has been unrelenting, but I hope to get something put together to describe the command structure this weekend. Hog Farm _Talk 03:00, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

No worries, and I can definitely sympathise! I'm going to be away for the next week, so no rush. Nick-D (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I hope this addition is at least somewhat helpful. Hog Farm _Talk 03:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Parsecboy

Image review:

• File:Vicksburg Campaign December 1862-April 1863.pdf - since this is user-generated, it needs whatever source(s) was/were used to create it
  • Hal Jespersen is a professional cartographer who has had his work published in significant Civil War books. I don't know what sources he's used to create this, but I've added page citations to several books that between them, generally support the accuracy of this. Hog Farm _Talk 01:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Ah, I didn't know who he was. I've had to add citations to images in the past to support the accuracy of the image, so I think we're good. Parsecboy (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
• File:ArkansasPost-Battle(CivilWar).jpg - source link is dead
  • They reorganize their website a lot. I've added a working link to it, after the latest shuffling around of things. I've also tracked down a link to the original 1863 publication. Hog Farm _Talk 01:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
• The caption "Map and plan of the fortification." isn't a sentence so shouldn't have the period
  • Removed full stop. Hog Farm _Talk 01:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

That's it for images. Parsecboy (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Parsecboy, any more comments to come on the image review? If not, is it a pass or a fail? Matarisvan (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Nope, this one is good to go. Parsecboy (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Meligalas

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Ashmedai 119 (talk)

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

This article was translated from Greek Wikipedia, where it is a FA, a while ago from Cplakidas, the undersigned having been the editor who contributed most to its original version. It has passed a GA review, without many critical comments from the reviewer. I am nominating this article for A-Class review, because I think it fulfills the A-Class criteria and I would also greatly appreciate comments by encyclopedia editors who have concerned themselves with military matters, hoping that there will be improvements that will eventually lead the article to being a Featured Article. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Borci na ELAS.jpg - this needs a US licensing tag as well, since Wikimedia servers are in the US
  • Resolved
    • This photo does not have a date of publication, so how do we know that either one is correct? Be aware that creation and publication are two very different things. Without a date of publication, it's basically impossible to firmly establish copyright status in the US.
      • The additional licensing tag was added by the undersigned based on a reasoning that was developed in the context of this discussion at the Commons "Village pump". Given the original uploader's response to my request for concrete details re publication etc, this seems to be the most satisfactory description of its copyright status that is achievable. If you hold that the (current) conclusion of the discussion in the Commons is unsatisfactory or plainly wrong, might I propose that you make the case for that in the Commons, so that other users, who suggested that this licensing tag is appropriate, can contribute their opinion regarding the matter? Ashmedai 119 (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
        • Carl's one of the people I go to with copyright questions, so if they're fine with it, we're probably ok. Parsecboy (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
• File:BRAVOS-1940.jpg - same as above
  • Resolved
    • Same as above - without a date of publication, how do we know what its copyright status is?
      • Please see above. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
• All other images check out, either Bundesarchiv photos or works of current users
• Please remove periods from captions that are not full sentences
  •  Done
• In terms of placement, you have some MOS:SANDWICHing going on in the "German takeover and the establishment of the Security Battalions" section, which should be avoided.
  • Resolved

That's it for images. Parsecboy (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out these issues, Parsecboy. They have all been resolved now. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The licensing issues still need more information to be resolved. Parsecboy (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

Most of the issues with this article seem to be in the translation.

Lead

• Mention that the ELAS was a (mainly communist) left wing resistance organisation, as this knowledge is necessary to understand the last paragraph
  •  Done
• "from 1942" no comma
  •  Done
• "remains a point of reference and an antifascist rallying cry for the far-left in Greece" I have no idea what is meant here
  • Apologies for this, but in my non-native English speaker mind, this does make sense, especially given that I have in consideration the last section of the article that this sentence tries to summarize. Perhaps you would have a proposal to rewrite this (e.g. by eliminating the phrase "point of reference", if this is the confusing bit) after you have read the last part of the article?

Political and military background

• " the wing commander Dimitris Michas" -> Wing Commander Dimitris Michas
  •  Done
• " in the mountainous areas of Messenia" Where is that?
  • I added a wikilink to Messenia and the phrase "in southwestern Peloponnese".
• " was established as a Resistance group", " the local Resistance groups" lower case R
  •  Done, though I have my doubts this is correct [the Resistance is a historical phenomenon, as in "the Renaissance artists", "the Enlightenment thinkers"]
• " after forging ties with royalist networks chiefly in the area and in Athens" In what area?
  • "In the area" here denoted the Peloponnese and I substituted it with the phrase "in the Peloponnese".
• " but these failed" -> " but these efforts failed"
  •  Done
• "such as Dionysios Papadongonas and possibly also Tilemachos Vrettakos, respectively " Delete "respectively"
  • "Respectively" here serves to denote that Papadongonas sought help from the Italians and Vrettakos from the Germans -- if it is to be removed, how are we to distinguish between the two?
• " the German major general Karl von Le Suire" capitalise "major General" (link to Generalmajor)
  •  Done
• "Apart from the "Evzone Battalions" (Ευζωνικά Τάγματα) established by the collaborationist government of Ioannis Rallis, in late 1943 independent "Security Battalions" (Τάγματα Ασφαλείας, ΤΑ) began being raised" What do we mean by "Apart from" Is "In addition to" meant?
  • Resolved
    -- changed to "In addition to"
• "After a request of the collaborator prefect of Messenia" -> "request from"
  •  Done
• " ordered in February" -> " ordered in February 1944" ?
  •  Done
• "the Security Battalion under the command of Major Panagiotis Stoupas, that arrived" Delete comma

 Done

• "After a request of the collaborator prefect of Messenia, Dimitrios Perrotis, the Rallis government ordered in February a municipality-supported Security Battalion to be formed in Kalamata, which merged in March with the Security Battalion under the command of Major Panagiotis Stoupas, that arrived from Athens in Meligalas, a location that controlled the road from Kalamata to Tripolis and the entire area of the south." This entence is too long and very confusing. Break it up.
  •  Done
• "a town held by a German garrison at Meligalas" This doesn't make sense.

Resolved

I've edited the sentence to "Meligalas became the first town held by a German garrison to be attacked by ELAS"

• " sent there Aris Velouchiotis" -> "sent Aris Velouchiotis there"
  •  Done
• "Velouchiotis' task was to reorganize the 3rd ELAS Division, with a total strength of some 6,000 men" He is trying to reorganise it, reducing it to 6,000 men?
  • No, this was the 3rd Division's total strengh.
• "Following the assassination of Georganas by the OPLA of Kalamata" Who were they?
  • Resolved
    -- added a phrase about the OPLA with a reference to a recent monograph about the OPLA of Athens
• " members of the collaborationist governments" There is more than one?
  • Yes, from April 1941 onward three collaborationist governments formed in occupied Greece, under Georgios Tsolakoglou, Konstantinos Logothetopoulos and Ioannis Rallis.
• "proscribing the death penalty for high treason to those who" -> "for those who"
  •  Done
• "The British desired the maintenance of the status quo until the arrival of their forces and the Papandreou government, and above all wanted to avoid German arms and equipment from falling into the hands of the partisans." Italicise "status quo"
  •  Done
• " British lieutenant general Ronald Scobie", "Greek lieutenant general Panagiotis Spiliotopoulos" capitalise and link "lieutenant general"
  • Resolved
    capitalised and added links
• " Walter Blume, the head of the German security police (SD)" add "in Greece"
  •  Done
• "Colonel Papadongonas" Delete "Colonel"
  •  Done

more to come... Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• "distributed the c. 50 light machine" We don't use circa in English except for dates. Replace all instances in the article.
  •  Done replaced all instance
• "The attackers, however, " Delete "however"
  •  Done
• "to approach the besieged Battalionsts, to facilitate their surrender" Delete comma
  •  Done
• "the invasion of Meligalas by civilians" "invasion" is not the right word here
  •  Done
• "the Battalionists's " Delete "'s"
  •  Done
• "or even the local EAM authorities" -> "and even the local EAM authorities"
  •  Done
• "in some occasions the families " -> "on some occasions the families"
  •  Done
• Gerolymatos, André (2018) is not used
  • Resolved
    reference removed
• Theodoropoulos, Ilias (1998) needs a publisher.
  • This was a self-publication, there is no published mentioned in the book.

I strongly urge that this article be copyedited. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• • As many of the problems you raised were not detectable by my eyes, I am not sure I would be up to the task and I am wondering if you would have someone to suggest in this regard. Thanks, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Current reassessments

Please add new requests below this line