Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment

Main page Discussion News &
open tasks Academy Assessment A-Class
review Contest Awards Members

The assessment department of the Military history WikiProject focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's military history articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work, and are also expected to play a role in the Version 1.0 Editorial Team program.

Overview

Introduction

The assessment system used by the Military history WikiProject to rate article quality consists of two parallel quality scales; one scale is used to assess regular prose articles, while the other is used to assess lists and similar non-prose articles. The progression of articles along these scales is described in greater detail below.

Prose article				List article
		Stub				The first stage of an article's evolution is called a stub. A stub is an extremely short article that provides a basic description of the topic at best; it includes very little meaningful content, and may be little more than a dictionary definition. At this stage, it is often impossible to determine whether the topic should be covered by a prose article or a list, so this assessment level is shared between the two scales.
Start				List		A stub that undergoes some development will progress to the next stage of article evolution. An article at this stage provides some meaningful content, but is typically incomplete and lacks adequate references, structure, and supporting materials. At this stage, it becomes possible to distinguish between prose articles and lists; depending on its form, an article at this level will be assessed as a Start-Class prose article or a List-Class list.
C				CL		As the article continues to develop, it will reach the C-Class level. At this stage, the article is reasonably structured and contains substantial content and supporting materials, but may still be incomplete or poorly referenced. As articles progress to this stage, the assessment process begins to take on a more structured form, and specific criteria are introduced against which articles are rated.
B				BL		An article that reaches the B-Class level is complete in content and structure, adequately referenced, and includes reasonable supporting materials; overall, it provides a satisfactory encyclopedic presentation of the topic for the average reader, although it might not be written to the standard that would be expected by an expert. Articles at this stage commonly undergo peer review to solicit ideas for further improvement. B-Class is the final assessment level that can be reached without undergoing a formal review process, and is a reasonable goal for newer editors.
GA						After reaching the B-Class level, an article may be submitted for assessment as a good article. Good articles must meet a set of criteria similar to those required for the B-Class assessment level, and must additionally undergo the formal good article review process. This assessment level is available only for prose articles; no comparable level exists for lists.
A				AL		A good or B-Class article that has undergone additional improvement may be considered for the A-Class assessment level. An A-Class article presents a complete and thorough encyclopedic treatment of a subject, such as might be written by an expert in the field; the only deficiencies permissible at this level are minor issues of style or language. To receive an A-Class rating, a candidate article must undergo the formal military history A-Class review process. The A-Class rating is the highest assessment level that may be assigned by an individual WikiProject; higher assessment levels are granted only by Wikipedia-wide independent assessment processes.
FA				FL		The featured article and featured list ratings represent the pinnacle of article evolution and the best that Wikipedia has to offer; an article at this level is professional, outstanding, and represents a definitive source for encyclopedic information. Featured status is assigned only through a thorough independent review process; this process can be grueling for the unprepared, and editors are highly advised to submit articles for A-Class review prior to nominating them for featured status.

Criteria

The following tables summarize the criteria used to assess articles at each level of the quality assessment scale. In addition to the criteria, the tables list the assessment process used at each level and provide an example of an article previously assessed at that level.

Assessment criteria for prose articles

Class	Criteria	Assessment process	Example
FA	The article meets all the featured article criteria. Detailed criteria A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes. It is— well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard; comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of— a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. The use of citation templates is not required. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.	Featured article candidacy	USS Chesapeake (as of June 2011)
A	The article meets all of the A-Class criteria. Detailed criteria A1. 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. A2. The article/list is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail. A3. The article/list has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. A4. The article/list is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant. A5. The article/list contains appropriately licensed supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where relevant. See also the A-Class assessment & criteria FAQ.	A-Class review	Lockheed D-21 (as of June 2011)
GA	The article meets all of the good article criteria. Detailed criteria A good article is— Well written: the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Good article review	Al-Mundhir III ibn al-Harith (as of June 2011)
B	The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. Detailed criteria B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. B3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. B4. It is free from major grammatical errors. B5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. See also the B-Class assessment & criteria FAQ.	Individual review	Battle of Guttstadt-Deppen (as of June 2011)
C	The article meets B1 or B2 as well as B3 and B4 and B5 of the B-Class criteria. Detailed criteria B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. B3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. B4. It is free from major grammatical errors. B5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. See also the B-Class assessment & criteria FAQ.	Individual review	Incident at Xuanwu Gate (as of June 2011)
Start	The article meets the Start-Class criteria. Detailed criteria The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element; it has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following: A particularly useful picture or graphic Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article	Individual review	Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law (as of June 2011)
Stub	The article meets none of the Start-Class criteria.	Individual review	Eagle Point National Cemetery (as of June 2011)

Assessment criteria for lists

Class	Criteria	Assessment process	Example
FL	The list meets all the featured list criteria. Detailed criteria Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. Comprehensiveness. (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. (b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.	Featured list candidacy	Army of the Danube order of battle (as of June 2012)
AL	The list meets all of the A-Class criteria. Detailed criteria A1. 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. A2. The article/list is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail. A3. The article/list has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. A4. The article/list is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant. A5. The article/list contains appropriately licensed supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where relevant. See also the A-Class assessment & criteria FAQ.	A-Class review	List of battlecruisers of the United States (as of May 2012)
BL	The list meets all of the B-Class criteria. Detailed criteria B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. B3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. B4. It is free from major grammatical errors. B5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. See also the B-Class assessment & criteria FAQ.	Individual review	List of hill forts in England (as of June 2012)
CL	The list meets B1 or B2 as well as B3 and B4 and B5 of the B-Class criteria. Detailed criteria B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. B3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. B4. It is free from major grammatical errors. B5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. See also the B-Class assessment & criteria FAQ.	Individual review	List of assault rifles (as of June 2012)
List	The list meets the List-Class criteria. Detailed criteria The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element; it has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following: A particularly useful picture or graphic Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article	Individual review	List of Airborne Artillery Units (as of June 2012)
Stub	The list meets none of the List-Class criteria.	Individual review	List of supercavitating torpedoes (as of June 2012)

Processes

This section describes the different processes used to assess the quality of military history articles.

Individual review

The individual review process is used for all assessment activities up to the B-Class level. In this process, any editor may review an article against the listed criteria and assign the corresponding quality rating themselves.

Article authors are free to assess their own articles under this process. However, by convention, the final assessment for a B-Class rating is typically left to an independent editor; requests for an independent assessment may be made at the assessment request page.

Peer review

The peer review process is not used to evaluate an article for a particular assessment level directly; rather, it is a forum where article authors can solicit ideas for further improvements. Peer review is most often requested when an article is at the C-Class or B-Class level; articles at lower levels are typically so incomplete that a meaningful review is impossible, while articles at higher levels go through more formal review processes.

By convention, military history articles are typically listed in the history section of the main peer review request page; however, articles may be listed in other sections if their primary topic lies in another field.

Good article review

The good article nomination process is an independent review mechanism through which an article receives a "good article" quality rating. The process involves a detailed review of the article by an independent examiner, who determines whether the article meets the good article criteria.

Full instructions for requesting a good article review are provided on the good article review page.

A-Class article/list review

The military history A-Class review process is the most thorough and demanding assessment of article quality done by the Military history WikiProject. An article that undergoes this process must be reviewed by at least three independent examiners, each of whom must agree that the article meets all of the A-Class criteria.

Full instructions for requesting an A-Class review are provided on the A-Class review page.

Featured article/list candidacy

The featured article candidacy and featured list candidacy processes are an independent, Wikipedia-wide quality assessment mechanism; these processes are the only way an article can receive a "featured" quality rating. The process involves a comprehensive review of the article by multiple independent examiners, all of whom must agree that the article meets the featured article or list criteria.

Full instructions for submitting a featured article or list candidacy are provided on the corresponding candidacy page. Editors are advised to carefully review the submission instructions; failing to follow them correctly may cause the submission to be rejected.

Instructions

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WPMILHIST|class=???}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article:

• FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class military history articles)
• FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class military history articles)
• A (adds articles to Category:A-Class military history articles)
• AL (adds articles to Category:AL-Class military history articles)
• GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class military history articles)
• B (adds articles to Category:B-Class military history articles)
• BL (adds articles to Category:BL-Class military history articles)
• C (adds articles to Category:C-Class military history articles)
• CL (adds articles to Category:CL-Class military history articles)
• List (adds articles to Category:List-Class military history articles)
• Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class military history articles)
• Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class military history articles)

The class parameter should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

The following classes may be used for non-article pages; many are automatically generated by the template when it is placed on a page of the corresponding type:

• BK (for books; adds pages to Category:Book-Class military history articles)
• CAT (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class military history articles)
• DAB (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class military history articles)
• DR (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class military history articles)
• IMG (for files; adds pages to Category:File-Class military history articles)
• NA (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class military history articles)
• POR (for portals; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class military history articles)
• RDR (for redirects; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class military history articles)
• SI (for set index pages; adds pages to Category:SIA-Class military history articles)
• TMP (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class military history articles)
• USR (for user pages; adds pages to Category:User-Class military history articles)

FAQ

See also the general assessment FAQ and the project's B-Class assessment & criteria FAQ and A-Class review & criteria FAQ.

1. What is the purpose of the article ratings? 

The rating system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. It is also utilized by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content. Please note, however, that these ratings are primarily intended for the internal use of the project, and do not necessarily imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.

2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject? 

Just add {{WPMILHIST}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.

3. Someone put a {{WPMILHIST}} template on an article, but it doesn't seem to be within the project's scope. What should I do? 

Because of the large number of articles we deal with, we occasionally make mistakes and add tags to articles that shouldn't have them. If you notice one, feel free to remove the tag, and optionally leave a note on the talk page of this department (or directly with the person who tagged the article).

4. Who can assess articles? 

Any member of the Military history WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Editors who are not participants in this project are also welcome to assess articles, but should defer to consensus within the project in case of procedural disputes.

5. Can I assess articles that I have written or contributed significantly to? 

For the most part, yes—in fact, you are encouraged to do so. B-Class assessment, by convention, is generally undertaken by an independent editor (requests can be made here), and A-Class promotion requires the consensus of multiple independent reviewers. However, if your article falls within the Stub- to C-Class range, by awarding the rating yourself you are helping to prevent the assessment requests process becoming overloaded.

6. How do I rate an article? 

Check the quality scale and select the level that best matches the state of the article; then, follow the instructions below to add the rating to the project banner on the article's talk page. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment scale.

7. Can I request that someone else rate an article? 

Of course; to do so, please list it in the section for assessment requests below.

8. Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments? 

Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning.

9. Where can I get more comments about an article? 

The peer review process can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.

10. What if I don't agree with a rating? 

You can list it in the section for assessment requests below, and someone will take a look at it. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment scale.

11. Aren't the ratings subjective? 

Yes, they are somewhat subjective, but it's the best system we've been able to devise. If you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know!

12. What if I have a question not listed here? 

If your question concerns the article assessment process specifically, please refer to the discussion page for this department; for any other issues, you can go to the main project discussion page, or contact the project coordinators directly.

Requests

Requests for A-Class review

For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review.

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in UK service • Mark XIV bomb sight • Yugoslav submarine Osvetnik • Yugoslav submarine Smeli • Osvetnik-class submarine • List of destroyers of the Indian Navy • List of National Defence Academy alumni • Siege of Kamarja • Asad ibn Abdallah al-Qasri • SMS Seeadler • Operation Leader

Requests for assessment

Please note that this section is transcluded from a separate requests page, which you may wish to add to your watchlist.

Editors can self-assess articles against the five B-class criteria^(FAQ) up to and including C-Class. If you have made significant improvements to an article against one or more of B-class criteria and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below, specifying which criteria you have worked on. If you feel unable to assess against one or more of the B-class criteria, please say so when posting. Requests for formal A-Class review should be made at the review department. Please consider entering articles you have improved in the military history article writing contest.

• K J Singh (general) - Please assess it for B-Class. Regards, KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 11:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Assessed as C class as there probably needs to be something about his early life (e.g. date of birth, parents, schooling etc). Wouldn't need to be more than a couple of sentences, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• American Revolutionary War Half of the article got unreferenced since last assessment, I don't suppose it's B class anymore. Uspzor (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Uspzor I have taken the time to re-assess it to C-class, there are many (at least 10) passages in the article that are no longer cited. As such the article no longer meets B1 requirements for at least a single citation per paragraph. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yelnya Offensive -- pls assess. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• @K.e.coffman: Please address the cn tags I have placed in the lead and in the later sections. There are about five of them. Regards, KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 00:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I added requested citations to the quotes. I don't think that the citations are needed in the lead as the lead is a summary of the material which is already being cited within the body of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• B-class. Regards, KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 01:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry but I have to dispute this assessment. Numerous references lack page numbers, therefore I reassessed it as C class.--Catlemur (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Catlemur: I believe you are referring to "Khoroshilov, G. (Col.); Bazhenov, A., (Maj.) (1974). "Yelnya Offensive Operation of 1941 Military Historical Journal (No.9)" -- This was added by a prior contributor; I do not have access to this source. Since it's a journal, are page numbers required? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe they are, unfortunately I was unable to find the journal online to add them myself. Apart from that (Glanz 2010) needs a minute mark since it is a documentary.--Catlemur (talk) 08:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Khydyr Mustafayev - Please reassess after expansion for August contest. Kges1901 (talk) 10:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

  Start? although I could be talked into B class if you tell me there are no sources. It just seems a bit light. auntieruth (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

  @Auntieruth55: Added some information about his postwar career. Does it meet B class now? Kges1901 (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Alexander Vologin - Please assess after expansions and corrections for August contest. Kges1901 (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

  start. Light on info, and the prose is a tad unclear--who crossed where and when, which report, etc. auntieruth (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

  @Auntieruth55: Clarified prose. Is the article at B class now? Kges1901 (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Battle of Gettysburg - Just created list that could use a check for CL-class; thanks in advance ... GELongstreet (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• 76th Tank Division - Please assess new article for August contest. Kges1901 (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Its Start Class, it needs more prose for B. Dead Mary (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Problem is, that's all that is known about this division. Same with the 77th Division. Kges1901 (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, I imagined that this is the case. I guess in such a situations it is unfortunately not possible to bring such topics to B-Class. Of course I am open to correction from more experienced revieweres. I dont know if such cases were ever discussed. Dead Mary (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• 77th Tank Division - Please assess new article fro August contest. Kges1901 (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Its Start Class, it needs more prose for B. Its good but its only like 5 sentences. :) Dead Mary (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Second Battle of Bapaume - expanded article, please update assessment. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 11:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Its a good article and fullfills the B-Class criteria easily. But it is also is entirely written from the NZ/GB view. Except from a brief mentioning of the 111th Division no German unit or commander is named. Maybe you can add at least the top German organisational unit (Army/Corps) that was involved and also add its commander? Atm they just fought against a glibbery mass called "Germans". ;) You also may want to add the battle into the 100 days offensive template. Dead Mary (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback, Dead Mary. I have added a little extra info on the various German units throughout but my sources are relatively light. Please update the assessment on the talk page for the article. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you. As I said before the B-Class criteria is fullfilled, so I updated the assesment. Dead Mary (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Sam Manekshaw - Expanded article and referenced. Please asses for B-class. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 12:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• As the only major problem for B-Class was sourcing, it is now B-Class. However, can you move the two citations (2 and 3) from the lead into the article? This information is already in the article itself so no need to source it in the lead too. That article also may need some copyediting. I spotted this:
• There is a "he" mising in the 2nd sentence of the lead.
• I am not exactly sure regarding the style: The article uses his given name and surname interchangably. In my understanding the surname should be used, that means just Manekshaw and not "Sam".
• "When his father refused to send him to London until he was old enough." is a weird sentence missing a word.
• "Under Officer Smith Dun, who later became the chief of the Burmese Army received the sword of honour and the gold medal was presented to Sergeant N.S. Bhagat." A "he" is missing before "received". Also needs a comma after "Burmese Army".
• "Under Sam's hierarchy, army started to shoulder several operations in East Pakistan such as training and equipping the Mukti Bahini (a local group of freedom fighters), " the atmy started
• "to inform the Prime Minister that order were being issued for movements of troops of Eastern Command." "orders" missing plural
• "Though on 11 December, Maj Gen Ali messaged the United Nations requesting for a cease-fire, it has been marked an 'unauthorized' " "as" unauthorized (not "an") I guess?
• "and the commanders of the navy and the air force, the later was dropped." the "latter" was dropped I guess. They would have asked you to fix those things at GAN too. :) Dead Mary (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dead Mary: I have fixed them. Please have a look. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 12:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I updated the rating to B-Class. Dead Mary (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Jeffrey Grey Military historian. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Easily B-class. The number of links you've added to articles where his works have been used as a reference provides a good indication of Grey's contributions to the field. Nick-D (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• Maharram Dadashev - Please reassess after expansion for August contest. Kges1901 (talk) 08:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Avaz Verdiyev - Please reassess after expansion for August contest. Kges1901 (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• I updated the articles rating to B-Class. Dead Mary (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Jean Antoine de Collaert - Napoleonic Wars. Please assess for B class. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Looks B class to me. I've reassessed it now as such. Anotherclown (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Mammad Maharramov - Please reassess after expansion for August contest. Kges1901 (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Gafur Mammadov - Please reassess after expansion for August contest. Kges1901 (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Uskok-class torpedo boat has had some tweaks to (hopefully) bring it up to B-Class. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • B class, coverage looks sufficient to me given the topic. Anotherclown (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• List of Azerbaijani Heroes of the Soviet Union - Please assess new list for August contest. Kges1901 (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty - I have expanded and rewritten virtually the entirety of what was a start-class article a couple of weeks ago. Hoping to confirm that this is B-class (subsequent goal of GA-class); I think all necessary criteria should be met with the rewrite. Thank you.  GRKO³  (talk) 05:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Easily B class in my opinion, looks like quite a lot of effort has gone into it so far. Best of luck taking it further. Anotherclown (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Appreciate it. Just nominated this for GA rating.  GRKO³  (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• 18th Guards Motor Rifle Brigade - Please assess new article for August contest. Kges1901 (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
• 247th Guards Air Assault Regiment - Please reassess, recently expanded. Kges1901 (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• I updated the assessment to B-Class. Dead Mary (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• K.M. Cariappa - Please reassess after expansion. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 13:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I made too many edits to properly assess this article. In a few cases I rewrote sentences that appeared to be non-neutral or unclear. I believe this article is B class (easily) and only needs someone else to assess for B4. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Alan Morrison (general): expanded a bit and referenced. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Tweaked a bit as usual -- B-Class, well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Habibulla Huseynov - Please reassess after expansion for August contest. Kges1901 (talk) 08:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Israfil Mammadov - Please reassess after expansion for August contest. Kges1901 (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Pyotr Georgyevich Novikov - Please assess new article for August contest. Kges1901 (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Operation Arctic Fox - Please asses for B class. I wrote this article already in 2011, but it was never re-assesed. I did some more rewriting and better sourcing today so I hope its fine now. Dead Mary (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Volk Field Air National Guard Base - Please assess for B class. I did a major (MAJOR) edit as I am currently at Volk. I expanded it as much as I could and added several pictures I took as I'm on the installation at the moment. FLJuJitsu (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Assessment backlogs

Please help to clear any backlogs of unassessed articles in the following categories:

• The current status of Category:Unassessed military history articles = 1,794 articles unassessed. After articles have been assessed, they are automatically removed from this category.

• The current status of Category:Military history articles with no associated task force = 6,789 articles without task forces. After task forces have been assigned, articles are automatically removed from the category.

• The current status of Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists = 24 articles with incomplete checklists. After the checklists have been completed, articles are automatically removed from the category.

Statistics

Military history pages by quality
Quality	Total pages
FA	923
FL	121
A	482
AL	33
GA	3,456
B	10,894
BL	173
C	19,398
CL	336
Start	70,256
Stub	48,933
List	3,061
Book	145
Category	20,700
Disambig	614
File	719
Portal	68
Project	107
Redirect	14,620
Template	4,237
Assessed	199,338
Draft	62
Unassessed	1,795
Total	201,133
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 7005698867000000000♠698,867			Ω = 4.94

Task forces (general topics)

• Military biography task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Fortifications task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Intelligence task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Military aviation task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Military culture, traditions, and heraldry task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Military historiography task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Military land vehicles task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Military logistics and medicine task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Military memorials and cemeteries task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Military science, technology, and theory task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Maritime warfare task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• National militaries task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• War films task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Weaponry task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category

Task forces (national and regional)

• African military history task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Asian military history task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Balkan military history task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Baltic states military history task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• British military history task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Canadian military history task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Chinese military history task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Dutch military history task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• European military history task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• French military history task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• German military history task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Italian military history task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Japanese military history task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Korean military history task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Middle Eastern military history task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Nordic military history task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• North American military history task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Ottoman military history task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Polish military history task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• South American military history task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• South Asian military history task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Southeast Asian military history task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Spanish military history task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• United States military history task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category

Task forces (periods and conflicts)

• American Civil War task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• American Revolutionary War task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Classical warfare task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Crusades task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Cold War task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Early Modern warfare task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Early Muslim military history task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Medieval warfare task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Napoleonic era task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• Wars of the Three Kingdoms task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• World War I task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category
• World War II task force assessment statistics: statistics • log • category

Special projects

Operation Majestic Titan assessment statistics Operation Majestic Titan pages by quality Quality Total pages FA 136 FL 10 A 24 GA 268 B 83 C 105 Start 158 Stub 25 Assessed 809 Total 809 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 7003222700000000000♠2,227 Ω = 2.79 log • category

Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I) assessment statistics Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I) pages by quality Quality Total pages FA 121 FL 10 A 23 GA 254 B 41 C 37 Start 44 Assessed 530 Total 530 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 7003107200000000000♠1,072 Ω = 2.07 log • category

Operation Majestic Titan (Phase II) assessment statistics Operation Majestic Titan (Phase II) pages by quality Quality Total pages FA 1 GA 4 B 8 C 10 Start 22 Stub 11 Assessed 56 Total 56 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 7002243000000000000♠243 Ω = 4.42 log • category

Operation Majestic Titan (Phase III) assessment statistics Operation Majestic Titan (Phase III) pages by quality Quality Total pages FA 9 GA 5 B 13 C 29 Start 10 Assessed 66 Total 66 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 7002218000000000000♠218 Ω = 3.30 log • category

Operation Majestic Titan (Phase IV) assessment statistics Operation Majestic Titan (Phase IV) pages by quality Quality Total pages FA 3 GA 3 B 11 C 10 Start 14 Stub 4 Assessed 45 Total 45 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 7002179000000000000♠179 Ω = 3.89 log • category

Operation Majestic Titan (Phase V) assessment statistics Operation Majestic Titan (Phase V) pages by quality Quality Total pages A 1 GA 2 B 8 C 17 Start 66 Stub 8 Assessed 102 Total 102 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 7002479000000000000♠479 Ω = 4.65 log • category

Logs

An automatically generated log of assessment activity is available here.