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

2020 Salvadoran political crisis

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): PizzaKing13 (talk)

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

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

Siege of Ariminum (538)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): A.Cython (talk)

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

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

MIT Radiation Laboratory

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nickknack00 (talk)

MIT Radiation Laboratory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article engages the major published sources on the Rad Lab, including Henry Guerlac's official history for OSRD, Robert Buderi's popular account, and Louis Brown's technical survey. Please be advised that Volume 1 of the Guerlac history is not available online.

Like the sources themselves, the article provides a chronological narrative through the lab's early development, but after 1942 the lab's contributions span many theaters and systems simultaneously, making a single narrative thread harder to sustain. In addition to A-list criteria review, I would appreciate any suggestions for organizing this later material more clearly.Nickknack00 (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

This is a great article! Wish I wrote something like this. Some comments:

• I know MIT is defined in the lead, but you should define it in the body as well.
  •  Done First body mention is now "Massachusetts Institute of Technology"
• "Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall" -> General George C. Marshal. And link Chief of Staff of the United States Army.
  •  Done Added link and corrected title
• "Bolling Field in Washington" -> Washington, D.C.
  •  Done Amended to Washington, D.C.
• "Los Alamos, the research laboratory of the Manhattan Project" Los Alamos was not the only research laboratory of the Manhattan Project; there was also the Radiation laboratory at Berkeley and the SAM Laboratories in New York. Suggest "the Los Alamos Laboratory of the Manhattan Project".
  •  Done Corrected as suggested.
• "Bell Labs, General Electric, RCA, Westinghouse and Sperry Gyroscope" Link?
  •  Done Added wikilinks to each. The same firms have prior links in the "American mobilization of civilian science", sub-section, but it's distant from the collaborators sub-section.
• Link D-Day? Japanese air attacks on the Mariana Islands?
  • D-Day linked. I will review sources for information on Mariana Islands attacks and MEW use.
  •  Done Now ready for review, @Hawkeye7. Craven and Cate covers the Pacific theatre gap, and the National Archives had a nice photo. You may wish to check the ranks. Do let me know if details should be moved to the AN/CPS-1 article.
• " General Orvil Anderson" -> Major General Orvil Anderson
  •  Done Rank corrected.

... more to come. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:37, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the first read, look forward to more comments. The finesse of the Manhattan Project articles inspired me to dig into this one, and I hope the influence is apparent. Nickknack00 (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• "By 946–47" -> "By 1946–1947"
  •  Done. Implemented same format for all year ranges.
• "dollars worth -> dollars' worth"
  •  Done
• Thrall (1946) is not used - move to Further reading section
  • Comment: Incorporated into text. Thrall is one of the lab's three official NDRC summary reports, so I see some value in presenting all three together. So I've now cited Thrall in "Blind bombing" and the first "Fire control" sections to describe weaknesses of the systems. I've used the reports for technical details and make "limiting" claims about the lab's impacts, since the reports aren't an arms'-length treatment of the subject.
• "Two former RLE directors emerged from the Rad Lab, Julius Stratton and Jerome Wiesner and later became MIT presidents;" comma after "Weisner"
  •  Done. Modified clause order.
• "1961 Boston bank study" -> bank of Boston"
  • Comment: The source (Leslie) is ambiguous on which bank authored the study. A footnote traces this to 1986 dissertation, but it's not digitized on ProQuest. So I've modified the phrase to "a Boston bank."

Great work! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:31, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, I think I've addressed all recommendations. Let me know if further edits are required! Nickknack00 (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Support Comments by A.Cython

This is my second A-class review so I might miss a few things, and if I say something off do not hesitate to ignore. This is a learning process for me as well. I hope you find my comments helpful.

Lead

• had lasting influence in postwar → had a lasting influence on postwar
  •  Done

Main body

• pulse radar does this correspond to Pulse-Doppler radar, if so add a wikilink and perhaps using the full name?
  • Pulsing is the general technique that was improved, but Doppler radar evolved separately and later.
    • I see, very interesting.
• Both Army and Navy should "the" be added
  •  Done
• airborne systems respectively add a comma before "respectively"
  •  Done
• under single divisional heads rewrite as "single" and "heads" (plural)
• By September 1941 add comma after this
  • Similar to By July 1943
    •  Done, and verified all other clause use a comma
• none satisfactory → none of which were satisfactory
  •  Done
• when Japanese air attack → when a Japanese air attack
  •  Done
• on June 25, 1944 → on 25 June 1944
  •  Done, and have converted all dates to the same style to match the consistency criteria

Sections

• Replace pseudo-section titles, e.g., ;Official histories with normal subsection titles === Official histories ===
  •  Done

Thanks for the close read!

Many thanks, it was an interesting read. Good luck. A.Cython(talk) 20:31, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• File:MIT Radiation Laboratory BW logo 1946.png: does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright - okay
• File:MIT Radiation Laboratory magnetron tests RL-35-193.jpg, File:MIT Radiation Laboratory trainees 1945.jpg, File:SCR-584 radar in Steenbergen RL-SCR-584-188.jpg, File:Massachusetts coastline PPI scope Bell telephone magazine (1945) (14569797239) (cropped).jpg, File:Lee DuBridge MIT Radiation Laboratory c1945 (quarter length crop).jpg, File:Francis Wheeler Loomis 1944 Radiation Lab (cropped).png, File:Isidor I. Rabi Rad Lab Office GCP-00020880 (quarter-length crop).jpg, File:MIT Radiation Laboratory Theory Group 1945.jpg, File:Raytheon magnetron assembly RL-35-227.jpg, File:Trump duBridge 1945 cropped.png, File:MIT Radiation Laboratory Radome Roof Lab RL-35-279.jpg, File:Douglas B-18 Bolo RL-DR-024 (cropped).jpg, File:Radiation Laboratory Steering Committee.jpg, File:LORAN Electronicnaviga00unit 0009.jpg, File:Technician with MEW Plan position indicator scope c1945.png, File:ANCPS-1 antenna Mount Topachau Saipan U.S. Air Force Number 56404AC.jpg, File:SG Radar Console 1945.jpg, File:Radar System Engineering Radiation Laboratory Series cover 1947.jpg - In the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1931 and 1963, and although there was a copyright notice, the copyright was not renewed - okay
• File:MEW ANCPS-1 antenna and bombers NAID 6922416.jpg, File:Massachusetts Institute of Technology at the End of World War II 6922654.jpg, File:Loran day night coverage 1946 photonegative NAID 205578225.jpg, File:Ground Controlled Approach in France 1945 NAID 6922417 (cropped).jpg, File:Start Point MEW D-Day Radar 0703H 19440606.jpg - NARA image - PD - okay
• File:SCR-270-set-up.jpg, File:SCR-582 radar in Algiers 1943.png, File:SCR584 antenna mount diagram.jpg, File:SCR 584 radar.jpg, File:Flak (1944).webm - US Army image - PD - okay
• File:B-17F Radar Bombing over Germany 1943.jpg, File:B-24 Liberator 15th AAF Bombing Ploesti Romania 15 July 1944 (cropped).jpg - US Air Force image - some editors might insist on a US Army tag, as the USAF was separated from the Army in 1947 - okay
  • Thanks for catching this. I've updated the templates to PD-US-Military-Army Nickknack00 (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• File:Grumman TBM-3W Avenger in flight, circa in 1946 (cropped).jpg - US Navy image - PD - okay
• File:NDRC first meeting 19400702.png - Image by unknown federal government employee?
  • The provenance on this image is weaker than I'd like. It's immediate source is an article submitted to Science by Vannevar Bush. I'm assuming it was taken by an aide to the NDRC at its first meeting, which would make it work created for the federal government.
• File:Thinktank Birmingham - object 1972S02605.00004(1).jpg - CC4.0 - okay
• File:Edward Mills Purcell.jpg - Needs a US tag as well
  • This is not one of my uploads, but I can look into it for US copyright purposes. The issue is that the Nobel Prize committee website doesn't give the original author, so I can't identify copyright status. I'll see if I can get a library scan of the original 1952 yearbook source.

• • This has long been a source of frustration for me. When I was a newbie, I thought that I could just take images from Commons and they had been properly checked and tagged. This turned out to not be the case; Wikipedia reviewers were far more critical. But in some cases images were rejected on grounds that carry no weight whatsoever on Commons, as the two projects have different rules. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  I've been doing illustrations for a while, but wasn't aware that there were different standards across the projects. I'll double my effort to get this one cleared. Nickknack00 (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• File:Lawrence Compton Bush Conant Compton Loomis 83d40m March 1940 meeting UCB.JPG - okay per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 March 7

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:31, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Source review - pass

I will do the source review. I need a few days to go through the sources. A.Cython(talk) 02:59, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Please fix citation 168 as it produces: Harv error: link from CITEREFWhite1946 doesn't point to any citation. Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation. It seems to me that the source by White is missing.

•  Done. White wrote the opening chapter in Thrall's edited volume.

Spot check

• #4 Y
• #15 Do you mean p. 17, instead of p. 9?
  •  Done, Should be Stewart, not Baxter
• #23 Could you please provide a quote to support the —far exceeding any American microwave source.
  • I'm amending this because it is a synthetic claim. Bowen and Cockcroft report 10kW in a UK test, which they describe as "roughly a thousand times the best American tube on the same wavelength" (p. 37). This sentence discusses the 15kW Bell Labs tests, which Buderi only compares as a seven-fold improvement on Bell Labs' best longer-wavelength tube. So I can't draw the thousand-fold inference without reaching across both claims.
• #26 It would be more reasonable to have pp. 14–25 instead of pp. 24–25. Also adding pp. 144–145, where it is more clearly stated that MIT was selected
  •  Done this is now FN28
• #31 Y
• #45 Y
• #56 Y
• #68 Can you provide a quote from the source?
  •  Done Should be Stewart, not Baxter. Now FN70
• #90 Y [optional] I think p.44 is not needed
  •  Done, now FN92
• #112 Y
• #159 Y explain a bit better in the text what is a wolf pack also consider to wikilink it Wolfpack (naval tactic)
  •  Done, good idea
• #164 Y consider adding a wikilink for Wilhelmshaven
  •  Done
• #171 Add the page 1095 where the quote is located
  •  Done Now FN172. Did not modify--p. 1095 cited
• #183 Mostly checks out but can you explain the fewer than one V-1 in four? Also, change the page range to pp. 857–859.
  •  Done Now FN184. One in four refers to the number intercepted by AA (23 percent) compared to all interceptions. Corrected page range.
• #190 Y
• #193 Y
• #194 Y
• #211 Mostly checks out except for opened roughly two hundred times more radio channels on p.16
  •  Done Now FN212. Fixed, the multiplier comes from Buderi p. 252
• #215 Y
• #216 Can you double check this one? All I see is the Appendix C.
  •  Done. Should have cited Stewart, not Baxter.

@Nickknack00: I completed the source review. Let me know if something is unclear. Thanks. A.Cython(talk) 04:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• @A.Cython: You should see all addressed! Nickknack00 (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Thanks, passed.A.Cython(talk) 16:12, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Menéndez's revolution

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): PizzaKing13 (talk)

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

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

Support Comments by A.Cython

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

Lead & infobox

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

• Yes per MOS:NONENGITALIC

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

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

Main body

• amnesty.Menéndez a space is missing

• Fixed

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

• Fixed

• longest lasting → longest-lasting

• Fixed

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

• Fixed

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

• Changed

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

• Changed

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

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

Aftermath

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

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

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

Sources

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

• Fixed

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

• Moved

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

• Done

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

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

« Return to A-Class review list

Savannah River Plant

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Savannah River Plant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it was originally part of Savannah River Site but was split in two. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:32, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Support Comments by A.Cython

A very interesting article about a group of facilities to produce materials relevant to nuclear weapons, etc. Overall, it is well-written and sourced. My comments are mostly minor/cosmetic and note that I am not an expert. I also assume it is ok to skip the GA review process.

Lead

• I feel it is not reflective of the content, for example, the neutrino experiment, space exploration, and the environmental activities are not mentioned.

  Y Lead has been expanded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks the lead looks great! A.Cython(talk) 00:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Prose

• did not want it too isolated → did not want it to be too isolated

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• on expensive water purification → on the cost of expensive water purification

  Y Really cosmetic now, but changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• A announcement was → An announcement was

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• secure access to the water supply, and provide flexibility → secured access to the water supply, and provided flexibility

  Y Changed as suggested to match tense. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• were not fixed → finalized (?)

  Y "Fixed" is probably what the source says, so changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Decision were taken → "Decision was taken" or "Decisions were taken"

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• to an interim measure → to be an interim measure

  Y Added missing word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• ceased mid-1988 → ceased in mid-1988

  Y Added missing word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• operate at Savannah River Plant → operate at the Savannah River Plant

  Y Added missing word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• low power → low-power

  Y Hyphenated. I note that 30 Watts is not converted to Imperial, as metric is used in US customary for electricity. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• was begun in June → was begun in June

  Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• level to be raised → level was raised

  Keeping this one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• To meet the objections → To address the objections

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Final concentration was done → The final concentration was done

  Keeping this one as is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• really existed or not → existed

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• heavy-water reactor key advantage → heavy-water reactor's key advantage

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Savannah River Projec to → Savannah River Project to

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• five year intervals → five-year intervals

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• River Plantby → River Plant by (add space)

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• If you do not use an acronym then you do not need to define it, e.g., NPR, EPA, SREL, SRARP, ERDA

  Y Artefacts of the article split. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Also, is there a reason why AEC is defined twice?

  Y No. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why in "Open to the public" the answer is in boldface, i.e, No?

  Y Just the way it was when I found it. Unboldened. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Consistency

• At the lead you say use ceased in 1988. but at the infobox In use 1951–1989. So which was the final year? Note the status says active, which confuses the reader. Perhaps expanding the lead would help the reader to read the infobox better.

Wikilinks

• aluminium
• fossil fuel
• Y Linked. I note in passing that Wikipedia uses "aluminium", overriding US English. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Note

• [Optional] I am not aware of restrictions against mixed reference style system, but my limited understanding is that at higher levels it is appreciated to have a clean and consistent reference style. A.Cython(talk) 20:27, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  What sort of inconsistency so we have? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  Under the section references, the citations of books, whose information is located under "Sources", is mixed with the citation information of reports and papers (e.g., 156, 157, 158), meaning that reference information is located at two different sections. A different way to see this is by asking whether there reports and papers should be under "Sources", are they considered sources? In my mind, a fully segregated information helps with the organization of the article's bibliography and eventually to the curious reader. I suppose this is more of my personal opinion so please ignore this if not relevant. A.Cython(talk) 22:18, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Drive-by comment - as this is a clear candidate for using American English, shouldn't it be "aluminum" not "aluminium"? Hog Farm _Talk 20:30, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:ALUMINIUM: For articles about chemistry-related topics, Wikipedia follows the spellings recommended by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC): aluminium not aluminum, sulfur not sulphur, caesium not cesium. These spellings should be used in all chemistry-related articles on English Wikipedia, even if they conflict with the national spelling variety otherwise used in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:28, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Landing at Scarlet Beach

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Landing at Scarlet Beach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The Landing at Scarlet Beach was the Australian Army's first opposed amphibious landing since Gallipoli in 1915, and the Australian Army's largest operation since the Great War. The landing at Scarlet Beach formed the right hook of a General Sir Thomas Blamey's double envelopment of the Japanese base at Lae. Although a knock-down-drag-out fight like the Battle of Buna was anticipated, the Japanese commander, Hatazō Adachi, chose to withdraw. Lae was developed into a major base. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D

It's great to see this article here. I'd like to offer the following comments:

I had largely abandoned the New Guinea campaign articles after Rupert left. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• "Landing at Scarlet Beach (Operation Diminish) (22 September 1943)" - presenting the date like this is a bit confusing given the article, correctly, covers the initial landing and the couple of weeks afterwards.

  Y Removed. Added later that it was in September 1943. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• "native soldiers" - 'New Guinean/Papuan soldiers' or similar would be better here

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• Ditto for "native porters", "natives", etc. This is outdated terminology.

  Y Replaced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• "which was passed on along with GHQ's estimate" - who was this passed on to?

  Y The 9th Division. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• "advanced along the coast from the Hopoi Mission Station" - can you give a bit more detail about this advance - e.g. "advanced north along the coast", etc - given that the geography here is very obscure to most readers.

  Y Added "east of Lae". It is marked on the main map. I could add another map. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• "Japanese marines" - I presume that these were SNLF troops, who are usually referred to as naval infantry rather than marines (as they weren't trained or equipped to make assault landings)

  Y Changed to "naval troops". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• "Grace ordered Major Ron Suthers" - what he commanded isn't identified at present

  Y Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• "Suthers halted on the ridge for the night but resumed his advance in the morning, reaching the Bumi at 10:00. They..." - I suspect the first words here should be 'Surthers' company/battalion' or similar?

  I think it is clear that it is the ad hoc force that he commanded that is referred to. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• "to protect the brigade area" - should this be "brigade maintaince area" or similar?

  Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• "The arrival of the 2/43rd Infantry Battalion meant that" - I was a bit confused by this: I'd suggest tweaking to "The arrival of the 2/43rd Infantry Battalion in the beachhead..." or similar

  Y Tweaked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• "The Japanese launched a counter-attack on the Allied lodgement around Scarlet Beach" - I'd suggest adding the date/s of this attack to clarify things

  Y Added date. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• From (very distant) memory, Coates notes that the Japanese 20th Division was a second-rate formation that had mainly been used for construction duties in New Guinea. If this is correct, it would be worth mentioning to provide some context.

  I can't find that assessment. The division was in Korea when the war began. It moved to Palau in January 1943 and then to Madang in June. It was used to construct the Madang-Lae Road, which was never completed, before being ordered to Sattelberg. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  I'll poke around in the sources I have and see if I can find this - I'm stuck at home recovering from a medical procedure at the moment, so have lots of time to kill! Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Comments Support by A.Cython

It looks like a great article, my comments are mostly minor/cosmetic. I am not an expert of the era and locale, but I hope you find my comments useful, please ignore anything that may not be useful.

Prose

• of air base → of an air base

  Y Changed to "air bases". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• cut the terrain → cut through the terrain

  I think this is okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• and in fact add comma at the end

  Not sure that this refers to. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• Over the next two weeks add comma at the end

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• fight ensured. → fight ensued.

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• to conform to Yamada's → to follow Yamada's

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• Japanese strong hold → Japanese stronghold (remove space)

  Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• 21 October, the attack consider replacing the comma with a full stop, it is a quite long sentence.

  Y Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Infobox

• Huon Peninsula, New Guinea if not mistaken "New Guinea" does not need a wikilink per WP:SEAOFBLUE

  Y Not MOS:SEAOFBLUE but MOS:GEOLINK. Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikilinks

• Huon Peninsula at Geography section

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• 13 mm heavy machine guns do we know the exact type to wikilink it?

  Y Yes. Linked. I don't think the machine gun article existed when this article was created. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Other

• metres confused which applies here (meter vs metre), see also Metre#Spelling, choose accordingly

  "metres" is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Sources

• The first reference has a deadlink tag.

  Y Once again the Internet Archive is a failure. Updated the link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

A.Cython(talk) 01:31, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@A.Cython: Willing to support? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:03, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Support A.Cython(talk) 21:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Comments Support by Zawed

A solid looking article, just nitpicks here and there

• In the lead, present distances consistently (first mention is in miles in first instance, second mention in kilometres in first instance)

• Y All primary measurements are now in metric (MOS:METRIC)

• In the lead, link Bumi River, Sattelberg

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• In the lead: ...they requested reinforcements from General Douglas MacArthur. The request was... for sake of succinctness, suggest: "...they requested reinforcements from General Douglas MacArthur. This was..."

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• In the lead: ...around Sattelberg and Finschhafen. First mention of Sattelberg, so no context, maybe just say "in the area" rather than identify both?

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the "Allied" subheading in Strategy section be "Allies"? Also link Bogadjim in that section

  Already linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• Landing, first wave section: They then departed for G Beach...: Suggest "Landing force" or similar to head off confusion as to what is "they"

  Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• Landing, first wave section: for one carrying 11 Platoon of the 2/15th Infantry Battalion: Link 2/15th Battalion

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Up to Followup section, more to come. Zawed (talk) 07:35, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Actually, having read this to the end, that's it. I found a couple of typos which I corrected and this looks to be in good order. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Zawed: Willing to support? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:03, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Certainly am! Zawed (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Source review – pass

For the record, this is my first time doing a source review at the A-class review. This is not my topic of expertise, but I will try to find the sources and check randomly selected statements. I will need a few days. A.Cython(talk) 16:14, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Actually most sources were online so this was easier than I anticipated.

• 13: Y though I would add the initial estimate since it is given and one would better appreciate the reduction in the estimation, i.e., 'in the area from 500–800 to 350.'

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• 14a: Y
• 14b: Y
• 19: Y
• 20: Y
• 33: please re-write the sentence: Ironically, ... was ideally suited to LST operations. as it is too close to the original.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• 50: Mostly checks out, except for the mention of Papuan Infantry. Can you add the relevant page where this is mentioned? "10 Platoon" is mentioned p. 464. Unless, I missed something here.

  Added fn 49, Coates, p. 72: "Captain Sheldon's company, together with the anti-tank platoon and two platoons of the Papuan Infantry Battalion, who were to act as scouts" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• 67: Y
• 77: Y
• 87: Y
• 96: Y
• 97: Y
• 109: Y

@Hawkeye7: Please address a couple of issues that popped up, otherwise sources look good. A.Cython(talk) 19:16, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Y Addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Passed Thanks, great article. A.Cython(talk) 20:41, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Savannah River Site

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Savannah River Site (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. Having overhauled the Hanford Site article, I thought it might be an idea to give some attention to its sister site in Georgia. The 800-square-kilometre (310 sq mi) site was built during the 1950s to produce plutonium and tritium for nuclear weapons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:02, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment The article size calculator plug in isn't working for me today so I can't put any useful figures around this, but I have to say that I find the size of this article rather daunting. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

The article size calculator plug in doesn't work on this article for reasons I am uncertain about. I asked the MilHistBot, and it said 13,741 words. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd suggest moving some of the content to sub-articles. This article looks very comprehensive and well researched, but the amount of detail is likely to be off putting to most readers. Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I could split the article into two parts: Savannah River Plant and Savannah River Site, covering everything from "Post-Cold War transition and cleanup operations (1993–present)" on. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

This has been done, so the article is much smaller now. I have nominated the other half. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Now that the article is much smaller, would you be willing to conduct a third review? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep, happy to. I'll post a review over this week. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Support by Dumelow

I've only read down to the "Former MOX fuel fabrication facility" section so far, might have to come back to this next week - Dumelow (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• "The Savannah River Plant (SRP) facilities were built in the 1950s to produce materials used in the fabrication of nuclear weapons, primarily tritium and plutonium-239, by irradiating target materials with neutrons in nuclear reactor."

  Either "in a nuclear reactor" or "in nuclear reactors"

  Y Added missing letters. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:42, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• In the Background section I would consider links for tritium, plutonium, nuclear weapons, neutrons, nuclear reactor, heavy-water reactor (our article uses the hyphen so you may want to also?)

  Y Added links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:42, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• "On 1 April 1989, when Westinghouse Electric took over management of the SRP from DuPont and one of its first actions was to rename the Savannah River Plant to the Savannah River Site, reflecting both the fact that there were several plants on the site and the shift of the primary focus from production of nuclear to other missions."

  The "and" after "DuPont" is superfluous

  Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:42, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Currently it's not clear how the first paragraph of "Reactor decommissioning and environmental remediation" relates to the plant. I feel it needs a closing sentence stating what effect the agreement had on the plant, did it cause it to cease production or had production stopped and it just led to it being decommissioned?

  Y Clarified that all reactors had been shut down by the end of 1988. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:42, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• The ordering of "Reactor decommissioning and environmental remediation" feels a bit off, we start with the 1997 agreement but then move back to works that took place to decontaminate the site in the late 80s and early 90s.

  Y Moved first paragraph to previous section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:42, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Add a conversion for "90 acres"

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:42, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• You launch straight into talking about "D Area", "M Area" etc. I feel perhaps another paragraph in "Background" introducing these might be helpful to the reader

  Y Added a map indicating the location of the lettered areas. Considering removal of mention of them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:42, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Consider linking coal ash, Savannah River, Weapons-grade nuclear material

  Y Linked.

• There is talk of effects on nearby communities, is it worth naming these?

  Y Not really; details are in the other article. Some towns were removed completely; others were transformed. Added a bit to the background on the location, and there is also the map. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:43, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Up to you but as this might be considered a science-related article under MOS:CVT but maybe provide a conversion for "50 meters" as a US article

  Y The main purpose of conversion is converting obsolete units into metric, so it seems odd to go the other way, but it does make it look more consistent. If the article was classified as a scientific one, metric units would have to come first.

• "the soil was replaced with clean soil"

  Any idea how much soil or to what depth?

  Source does not say. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:42, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• "scientists from the SREL, Savannah River Forest Station and Westinghouse "

  The SREL acronym isn't introduced anywhere. Also what is the Savannah River Forest Station?

  Y Added. Like most issues you have identified, it is an artefact of the article split, which is why splitting to reduce word count is a bad idea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:42, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• "In 1996, DWPF introduced radioactive material into a borosilicate glass vitrification process"

  This acronym hasn't been introduced. Likewise a few sentences later "DOE" is used, which has only been introduced in the lead

  Y Moved the whole section below the DWPF section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:42, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• "This agreement initially called for each country to dispose of 34 metric tons of surplus weapon-grade plutonium"

  Per MOS:CONVERT "Generally, conversions to and from metric units and US or imperial units should be provided", if we are not considering this a scientific article then I think a conversion should be provided for the weight

  In the old system of measurements, different units of mass were used for different metals: base metals (like iron and lead) in avoirdupois, precious metals (like gold and silver) in troy weight and fissile metals (like plutonium) in metric. So no conversion is required. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• "as the location of three new plutonium facilities for: MOX fuel fabrication; pit disassembly and conversion; and plutonium immobilization"

  You haven't told the reader what a pit is, I don't think it counts as common knowledge and is only mentioned here in the whole article.

  Y Added a link to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• "up to 3.5 tons of plutonium oxide"

  I don't know if I am in favour of it for small quantities like this but I think the MOS would require a metric conversion here

  Y Changed to "metric tons". Added a new link, as the Internet Archive one has rotted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• "In 2015, a report by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) estimated the total cost over a 20-year life cycle for the MOX plant to be $47 billion (equivalent to $60 billion in 2025) if the annual funding cap was increased to $500 million or $110 billion if it were increased to $375 million"

  Do we know what the previously agreed funding cap and total estimated cost was?

  Y Yes, and I've converted everything to 2014 dollars to avoid confusion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• "The Aiken Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit against the federal government claiming they have become a dumping ground for unprocessed weapons grade plutonium for the indefinite future and demanding previously agreed upon payment of contractual non-delivery fines. "

  Aiken hasn't been previously mentioned in the text, probably worth introducing the location in the background section.

  Y Added to the background. Another artefact of the split. Unfortunately, the reader misses out on the irony that the Aiken Chamber of Commerce was instrumental in lobbying for the plant to be located there in the first place. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• "arguing that the DOE had not prepared an environmental impact statement concerning the long-term storage of plutonium in the state"

  Is the long term geological store in South Carolina also or is this just referring to the material being kept on site longer than expected?

  Added "unanticipated" to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• " the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected South Carolina's suit for lack of standing"

  Probably worth a link to Standing (law), I had to look it up

  Y Many years ago, I was involved in a court case that featured this. The case was easily resolved, but the clerks went nuts tracing the history of the legal fiat, which, alas, is not covered in that article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• "Perry stated that the cost of a dilute and dispose approach to the plutonium will cost less than half of the remaining lifecycle cost of the MOX plant program"

  What is the position of dilute and dispose with regards the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement, we've previously only said that it allowed for conversion to MOX or immobilisation in glass or ceramic.

  Y Added: "Russia had suspended its implementation of the agreement in October 2016, citing delays in the United States' implementation." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Read down to "Major facilities and operations"

• "Increasingly stringent safety and environmental requirements required to replace the facilities in operation since 1955 to maintaining tritium productivity"

  Is there a way to avoid "requirements required"?

  Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  "to replace" and "to maintaining" don't read right to me here

  Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• "This efficient TCAP process, invented in 1980s at SRS, was chosen in 1984 as the isotope separation system for the new facility"

  Should this be "the efficient..."?

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• "One source of tritium is the recycling of tritium of nuclear weapons"

  Reads better to me as "from nuclear weapons"

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• "Canisters of tritium are routinely returned to the SRS for processing. Each contained three gases: tritium, deuterium, and helium-3, the decay product of tritium and a neutron poison."

  There is a disagreement of case here. If the canisters continue to be returned then the second sentence should be "each contains", I think?

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• ". One possibility was the NPR, but in November 1991 it was postponed for two years due to the end of the Cold War"

  You haven't mentioned what the NPR is

  Y Another artifact of the split. Added a bit about it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• "from third countries like for example, from the Chalk River Facilities in Canada"

  Is this the Chalk River Laboratories? If so, link

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Read down to "Waste management and disposition"

• "In the late 1960s, the Savannah River Laboratory began research to find a suitable solution for the management and disposal of liquid, highly radioactive waste generated at SRP"

  Presumably this is Savannah River National Laboratory? Not mentioned before so needs a link at least to explain what it is

  Y I've moved the Management section up below the Background, so it is now introduced early. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• "The molten borosilicate glass is poured in canisters and solidifies in canisters, thereby immobilizing the waste for thousands of years"

  "is poured in canisters and solidifies in canisters" seems unnecessarily repetitive.

  Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• "DWPF is the only operating radioactive waste vitrification plant in the United States and the world's largest.[77] Its construction began on 4 November 1983, and the facility commenced operation in March 1996.[85][86] In 1987, DOE projected the DWPF to cost an estimated $1.2 billion (equivalent to $3 billion in 2025) and to begin vitrifying waste in September 1989. In January 1992, costs escalated up to $2.1 billion (equivalent to $5 billion in 2025) and the start of vitrification operations was scheduled for June 1994.[87][88]"

  I think this would read better if the actual start of operations was stated at the end of the paragraph, feels a bit jumpy chronology-wise at the moment.

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• "The canisters containing vitrified high-level nuclear waste are currently stored in two Glass Waste Storage Buildings (GWSB)"

  In an uncited image caption you mention this is temporary until a permanent repository is built, I think this would be worth mentioning and citing in the main text

  Y Added this to the body. For some value of "temporary". You can read about it at Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• "(equivalent to $1474 million in 2025)"

  This needs a comma. Think "|fmt=c" into the inflation template will achieve this

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• "The remainder decontaminated salt solution is mixed with fly ash, furnace slag, and Portland cement in the nearby Saltstone Production Facility."

  Maybe it's an engvar thing but this reads better to me as "the remaining..."

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• "The Saltstone Facility has been operational in the Z-Area since 1990.[98] It is located in the SRS Z-Area"

  Seems like an unecessary repetition of its location in Z-Area

  Y Reworked this section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• "The Saltstone Facility consist of the Saltstone Production Facility (SPF) and the Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF)."

  "consists" here I think?

  Y Reworked this section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• "SPF receives and treats the salt solution to produce saltstone grout by mixing it with fly ash, furnace slag, and Portland cement"

  You've already said this in the previous paragraph of the SWPF, suggest omitting that detail from there and just say something like "the remaining decontaminated salt solution is treated at the nearby Saltstone Production Facility" and omit the bit about disposal which you cover here.

  Y Reworked this section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• " The saltstone grout form is pumped to large pre-constructed concrete structures serving as final disposal units, known as Saltstone Disposal Units"

  You've previously said this is called the Saltstone Disposal Facility, perhaps mention that here instead?

  Y Reworked this section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

  Is "form" necessary here? Reads fine to me as "The saltstone grout is pumped"

  Y Reworked this section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• "F-area and H-area tank farms" section

  Happy to hear thoughts but I think this would sit better before the DWPF, SWPF and SDF sections which describe how the waste from this location is treated

  Y Moved section up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• You use a mix of "F-area" and "F Area" here

  Adjectival hyphen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

No big deal for me, but I don't think it is the case here? "It is stored in 51 carbon-steel tanks, built between 1951 and 1981, and grouped into two tank farms in the F-area and H-area"

• "E Area Low-level Waste Facility (ELLWF)"

  I think could use a brief description of how waste is disposed of here (burial)

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• "The facility has a design processing capacity of 100,000 to 250,000 gallons per day and a maximum permitted capacity of 430,000 gallons per day"

  Provide metric conversions

  Y Added conversion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• "fundamental research"

  I would link to Basic research

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• "estimated to be around 31,000 liters, with an additional yearly supply of 8,000 to 10,000 liters harvested from the tritium stockpile"

  Consider converting to US units, as previous

  As noted above, this is US units. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Read down to "Operations and contract management"

  This has been moved up to the top. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Security: "The 1979 Iran hostage crisis gave rise to concerns about the Islamic terrorism."

  I think the second "the" is not needed here

  Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

• The second half of the paragraph on security appears to be related to overall site management not specifically security?

  Y Moved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

• Is there anything to be said about security at the site since 1979?

  Y Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

• Almost done; just checking: the new/moved content is in "Background" and "Management" now?

  Y Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Dumelow: Everything okay now? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, had forgotten about this one. Looking good, let me just have a read through of "Background" and "Management" again and I'll come back to you - Dumelow (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Mostly my fault. My Watchlist is cluttered with Infobox edits and I missed the last comments. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:36, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for delay. Happy to support this. A handful of minor comments - Dumelow (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

• You may consider linking Criticality (status) in "the fifth reactor, C Reactor, went critical in February 1955".

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

• There's an issue with the link in "with DuPont no longer satisfied Congress."

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

• "DOE" is expanded and linked at second mention

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

• Is the comma correct in "Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS), LLC"?

  Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

• "Amentum's AECOM", our article says Amentum was spun out of Aecom but this suggests the former owned the latter

  The source says "AECOM Energy & Construction, Inc., an Amentum Company". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Stikkyy

• Clarify that SRS Watch's name is referring to the Savannah River Site.

  The abbreviation is defined earlier in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  • SRS is introduced, but not SRS Watch, so personally I would spell the org's name out. I guess with three letters the likelihood of a coincidence is pretty minimal. Stikkyy (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

• • Y Expanded the abbreviation, as it is the organisation's official name. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Wasp nest section seems a bit out of date see More than 1 radioactive wasp nest uncovered at SRS and Radioactive wasp nests spark demand for answers at SC’s Savannah River Site.

  Can't say I thought it was important, but another editor felt it was worth mentioning. Updated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Move The development of saltstone... up a section to provide context for The resulting grout, which cures to a waste form known as saltstone...

  Y Re-worked section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Across the article, there are points in the article that desperately need context. See A Westinghouse safety review in April 1989 found that K, L and P reactors could all be restarted, but attention was focused on K Reactor., in 2000, the K-Reactor building was converted to the K Area Materials Storage Facility., I wouldn't know what the K-Reactor is if I wasn't reading the sources! What is a M area, and what differentiates it from the P and R areas? etc. etc.

  Y Some details about the reactors have been added, along with a map of the area with ALT text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Looking much better, some more points:
  • F Canyon was restarted and began stabilizing nuclear materials.–I presume that F Canyon is a nuclear reprocessing facility from F and H Area Separations facilities., but if so, it isn't explicit, and 'stabilizing' seems like jargon.

    Y Added an explanatory footnote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  • What is a settling basin and what were the chemicals doing in the basin?

    Y Linked the settling basin article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Two years later, the mixed waste management facility became the first site facility to be closed and certified under the provisions of RCRA. L Reactor and M Area settling basin were shut down.–Make the connection between these two statements, "the mixed waste management facility" hasn't been mentioned beforehand.

    Y Deleted second statement. Added an explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  • construction officially began on the $4.86 billion MOX facility.–Evidently, it didn't stay at $4.86 billion. Also needs an inflation template. Stikkyy (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

    Y Added a template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• The main gate and the cafeteria image sets are completely unrelated to the section that they're located in (Westinghouse replaces DuPont), and they break up the flow of the paragraphs, when the latest extension expired in 1989.→DOE put the contract out to tender. for example. Personally, as a reader, I would only expect these breaks when presented with an image that requires analysis or ties directly into the article's content, e.g. a treaty, or a map, or an artwork. Either way, I'm unconvinced that the images are a good fit for the article in the first place, since the old Savannah River Plant isn't touched upon much.

• Y That's because the article was split. Removed image. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• I think that the Operations and contract management section should be moved up and merged with Background since it explains the origin of the site. This would get rid of the chronological → spatial/topical → chronological transition in the article.

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Source review by Stikkyy – pass

Source origins are mostly unobjectionable, but I have doubts about globalsecurity.org.

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
Production of nuclear materials for defense programs ceased in 1988, and by the end of the year all five SRP reactors had been shut down.
1	b	energy.gov		Y	The source only states that K, L and P Reactors were shut down in 1988. I think a better flow would be to introduce the reactors (R, P, L, K & C) and note the order in which they were drawn down, see my above point about context. Needs a cite for Production of nuclear materials for defense programs ceased in 1988, if that's inherent from the reactors shutting down, it's not clear from a layman's perspective.
M Area closure was completed in 2010, with the P and R Areas following in 2011.
9	b	srs.gov	web.archive.org	Y
It also criticized the report for not documenting the type of wasp nest, as that would help explain the source of contamination.
29		cnn.com		Y
The initial cost estimate in 2014 was $18.6 billion (equivalent to $25 billion in 2025); within a year this had blown out to $21.3 billion and a report by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) estimated the total cost over a 20-year life cycle for the MOX plant to be $27.2 billion (equivalent to $37 billion in 2025) if the annual funding cap was increased to $500 million or $29.8 billion (equivalent to $41 billion in 2025) if it were increased to $375 million.
41		energy.gov	web.archive.org	Y
At a town hall meeting at USC-Aiken on 20 August 2021, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster led a discussion on how to spend $525 million of that amount.
50		abcnews4.com	web.archive.org	Y	If $525 million of that can now be allocated by the General Assembly, that makes me wonder where the other $75 million goes.
After evaluating other methods,
79		osti.gov		Y	A brief overview summary wouldn't hurt.
Operational since 2021, the SWPF use specific processes that have been developed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Argonne National Laboratory using annular centrifugal contactors. The concentrated waste is sent over, as a slurry, to the nearby DWPF for vitrification. The remainder decontaminated salt solution is mixed with fly ash, furnace slag, and Portland cement in the nearby Saltstone Production Facility.
92		Reed 2010, pp. 47–48.		Y
93		srs.gov		Y
It is located in the SRS Z-Area and is approximately 6.2 miles (10 km) from the main site. The Saltstone Facility consist of the Saltstone Production Facility (SPF) and the Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF). SPF receives and treats the salt solution to produce saltstone grout by mixing it with fly ash, furnace slag, and Portland cement.
99		archivedproceedings.econferen…		Y	I can't find the information for is approximately 6.2 miles (10 km) from the main site.
DOE put the contract out to tender. The Savannah River Plant would now be operated for a profit of between $26 and $40 million (equivalent to between $67.53 and $103.89 million in 2025). There were two bids: one from Westinghouse Electric with Bechtel; and one from a consortium headed by Martin Marietta with EG&G and United Engineers and Constructors. On 8 September 1988, DOE announced that the contract had been awarded to the Westinghouse Savannah River Company, a subsidiary of Westinghouse Electric created to run the SRP. The indemnity issue had been resolved by the Price-Anderson Act, which provided liability protection for the operator. Westinghouse assumed control of the SRP on 1 April 1989, and one of its first actions was to rename the facility the "Savannah River Site". All existing employees were guaranteed continued employment, and the work force grew to 22,800 and the budget to $2.2 billion in 1991 (equivalent to $5.7 billion in 2025), twice what it had been in 1989.
116		Reed et al. 2002, pp. 512–517.		Y
an LLC comprising BWX Technologies, Amentum's AECOM, and Fluor. Transition from the Liquid Waste Operations contract to the Integrated Mission Completion Contract was completed in early 2022.
127		exchangemonitor.com	web.archive.org	Y	I don't have full access to this source.

That's all from me. Stikkyy (talk) 04:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

1: Added another source.

50: The lawyers took it.

99: Added another source.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:46, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: What makes globalsecurity.org a reliable source? Stikkyy (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: "GlobalSecurity.org is an unreliable user-contributed and scraper site given to plagiarism. In the 2022 RfC, a slight majority of editors held that globalsecurity.org should be regarded as generally unreliable, with a significant minority arguing for deprecation. The site should not be used to back factual claims on Wikipedia." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Huh, the more you learn. However, most of the sentence that the removed citation was backing – DOE decided to split the contract into two new separate contracts: the Management and Operations (M&O) Contract and the Liquid Waste Contract. Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS), LLC – a Fluor partnership with Honeywell, and Huntington Ingalls Industries (formerly part of Northrop Grumman) – submitted a proposal in June 2007 for the new M&O Contract is now unsourced. Stikkyy (talk)

Y Added a new reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Support on source quality and source-text integrity. Stikkyy (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Nick-D

• This might be an American English thing, but when the site is described as a 'reservation' in the first sentence of the lead I assumed it was a decommissioned/empty plot of land, and was surprised to see at the end of this para that it is very active. Could a different term be used here?

  Y Changed to "industrial complex" per . Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• The 'Background' section seems mistitled as it's about the early operations at this facility

  Y Changed heading to "Savannah River Plant" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• "By the late 1980s, the terms of the original contract with DuPont no longer satisfied Congress" - did the Congress do anything specific about this, or did DuPont judge the way the wind was blowing and decided to end the contract ahead of changes?

  Y DuPont decided to end the contract ahead of changes. Tried to clarify this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• Could a photo or other image(s) be added to the 'Environmental remediation' section?

  Y Added a couple of images. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• "South Carolina Attorney GeneralAlan Wilson" and "South Carolina GovernorHenry McMaster" need spaces

• Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• The sentence starting with "The SRS tritium facilities" is over-complex

• Y Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• " A paramilitary organisation, it supplied a variety of protective services" - does it continue to do so, or what has replaced it?

• Y Still there as of 2026. Changed to "it supplies". Let me know if you feel stronger wording is required. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Support My comments have now been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 22 May 2026 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Transocean Air Lines Flight 942

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): TheNuggeteer (talk)

Transocean Air Lines Flight 942 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the article has good enough prose, is sourced reliably, and is broad enough. It has been significantly improved the last few days and talks about the topic well. It is already a good article. Regards, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 09:06, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Support from PizzaKing13

• At "Soldiers commonly used Transocean aircraft for needed travel", mention that this was because Transocean had a contract with the DoD so that there's context why the soldiers used this airline specifically

• Add

• Is "Defense Visual Flight Rules" supposed to be capitalized? Also consider linking to visual flight rules.

• Linked; it was capitalized in the source.

• Link Air Route Traffic Control to List of U.S. Air Route Traffic Control Centers

• Linked

• Is 500 feet correct here? That seems too low.

• Yes, it is correct.

• The mention of the Korean War comes out of no where this far down in the article. Does this mean that they were being flown to Guam to later be shipped to fight in Korea? If so, this should be mentioned in the background section.

• The source that said this does not explain why; it just says that they were rotating to Guam and mentions the Korean War only three times.

• With most accident articles I've see, the aircraft/passenger/crew information should go before the accident section. This is so that the context of what aircraft is conducting the flight and who/how many people are onboard (for example, it says all 35 people died in the prior section when there was no mention of how many people were onboard before then)

• Moved

• DC-4 should be linked at its first mention in the background section instead of in the aircraft/passengers/crew section

• Linked

• Were all 30 passengers soldiers?

• Clarified

• The article should be added to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by loss of control since it is stated in the infobox, and maybe Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by weather

• Added loss of control, but weather is speculative, so I haven't added that.

@TheNuggeteer: This is my first time commenting on an ACR, so let's see how this goes. These are my comments from my first read through of this article. I'll read it through a second time after you respond and see if anything else comes up. I studied aviation so this topic caught my interest. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 03:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@PizzaKing13: Thank you so much for taking the time to review this! I have responded to all of your comments. Regards, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 09:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@TheNuggeteer: Article looks good to me on a second reading and all my comments have been addressed. I'm glad to support this nomination. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 16:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Review by Dumelow

I am not an expert of aviation, military or otherwise, so please take this as a layman's review of the prose - Dumelow (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• "The flight was chartered to transfer military personnel for a rotation under Transocean Air Lines' contract with the DoD, specifically the 509th Bombardment Wing, from Walker Air Force Base in New Mexico to the Andersen Air Force Base in Guam. Since aircraft used to fly personnel were unavailable, the wing chartered an aircraft to transport them. Transocean aircraft were commonly used by military teams"

Doesn't tell us what country this relates to

I doubt the air line had a contract with the wing?

I found these sentences confusing. I had assumed the military personnel were from the wing, but later we call them soldiers. Do we know what units they were from?

Do we mean that US Air Force aircraft were unavailable?

• "The 830th Bombardment Squadron was responsible for providing aircrew and aircraft, while other squadrons contributed to flight plans and passenger lists."

I would explain that the squadron was a subordinate unit of the wing.

I thought Transocean provided the aircraft or are we talking about other aircraft in the same operation?

• "The movement progressed until March 20, when more aircraft were planned to depart, including a C-97 and two DC-4s over the course of the day."

Give us the year

When did the transports start? Had the DC-4 that later crashed been used for earlier flights?

Who operated the other transports? Transocean, 830th Squadron, someone else?

• I think it would be worth explaining the roles of the flight crew, I don't know the difference between a chief pilot an a captain.
• "indicating the flight should hover at an altitude of at least 500 feet"

This can't be literally "hover", does "maintain an altitude of..." work?

• We talk in the first paragraphs of "Accident" in detail about plans to travel to California but nothing about the ultimate destination in Guam?
• Link MST (Mountain time) in the main body as well as the lead.
• What is a "straight-in range approach" and the "Newark compass locator"?
• "The approach control also told the flight crew to report descending each 1,000 ft (300 m). At 18:30 PST, the aircraft started descending and reached 3,500 ft (1,100 m) at 18:36 PST. This was the last known interaction with the aircraft before it crashed"

Had the flight obeyed the instruction to report each 1,000 ft? Seems strange to raise it without this.

• "Two minutes later, at 18:38 PST, the aircraft was found to have crashed in a flat barley field 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometres) northeast of Alvarado"

Do we know who spotted it or otherwise how it was discovered?

• "Debris was scattered over an 800 ft (240 m) long area and a 300 ft (91 m) wide area."

This is awkward wording, suggest "the debris field measured 800 ft (240 m) long by 300 ft (91 m) wide" or something similar

• "Eyewitnesses saw the aircraft crash into a hill in drizzling rain.[8] Some witnesses saw ice chunks adhering to parts of the aircraft"

Any idea who these were?

• "The first civilians to come near the scene of the accident said they could see bodies in the rear of the aircraft.[9] Rescue services subsequently went to the crash site. Personnel could see bodies burning within the partially intact fuselage."

Not sure we need to say that the rescuers also saw the same bodies, feels a bit repetitive.

Do we know how the emergency services were summoned and where they came from?

Rescuers sent victims to a nearby hospital, but poor roads in the area hampered efforts.[10] Fire equipment was provided by two witnesses, helping in extinguishing the fire and rescuing six survivors. Mud blocked the ambulances, requiring tractors to free them."

How many victims were sent to hospital, just the six?

The bit about mud would sit better nearer where you talk about poor roads.

What was the fire equipment, did they just provide it or also use it to rescue the survivors

• "ambulances came from four East Bay hospitals"

This would sit better earlier when talking about the response arriving.

• "As there were no survivors, ambulances carried the bodies to Parks Air Force Base for identification"

Not sure of the relevance of the first clause? If there had been survivors would the bodies not have been taken to the base?

• " In New Mexico, funeral services were held for the fatalities"

Were all the dead buried in New Mexico then?

• Spell out CAB and link it the first time it is used in the main text
• " conflicting stories and accounts were told by representatives of Transocean Air Lines, aircraft operators, and the Oakland Approach Control"

Do we know how these were conflicting?

• "The right aileron's trim tab was placed in a neutral position, while the pilot's aileron trim tab was placed in an extreme down position. The left aileron separated into two sections."

I have no idea what this means. How many ailerons did the plane have? What is the significance of the left aileron being separated?

• What is a "wing fillet"?
• " All carbon dioxide bottles were found unused"

What would they have been used for, fire suppression?

• What is a "runway propeller"?
• In the lead: "Rescue services attempted to transport the victims to hospitals, but delayed efforts due to poor road conditions in the area"

"delayed efforts" implies to me that it was intentional, perhaps "efforts were delayed"

@TheNuggeteer: Any progress? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi TheNuggeteer, are you looking to come back to this one? It's in danger of being archived otherwise - Dumelow (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of 42nd Street

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): History6042 (talk)

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

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

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

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

Hawkeye7

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

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

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

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

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

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

My source says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gog the Mild

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sturmvogel_66

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

Source review

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

Current reassessments

Please add new requests below this line