Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests

Requests for assessment

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.

Experienced assessors are encouraged to take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#AutoCheck report for October and check a few of ≈ B-Class assessments. Feel free to downgrade them if you consider they don't meet one or more the criteria. Please also delete any that you have checked. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Assessment, whose articles often overlap with military history topics.

---

ADD NEW REQUESTS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS SECTION AND BEFORE THE LINE FOR THE BACKLOG CHECK REQUEST
Please remember to sign your requests.

• RAF Coolham — an article I have been working on that is still currently rated as Start-class and I have been meaning to get assessed for points to work on. I feel fairly confident there is enough material to eventually bring it to featured article class one day. I would greatly appreciate any feedback on it. TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 06:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  I believe this article would qualify for C-Class, at the very least. - Hu753 (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for assessing it, I'll get to work on it today to address the points it fails B-class on. TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  It appears that the section Royal Air Force and the various subsections under it require citations. While the bot might require citations for every item, a human assessor will almost certainly be satisfied with a citation in each of the headings if it covers all of the entries in that section - and this is clear, usually by citations that can be linked and checked. Donner60 (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the insight, I bundled all the pages of my books that supported all the claims into one big inline citation and put that next to the colon at the end of the paragraph just above the RAF section, but I will go back through and find which pages support which headings' contents and put those citations next to each respective heading in that case. I just have to finish the operational history section, and then a section about the airfield after it closed until the present day, and add some more Imperial War Museum photos to Wikimedia Commons of the airfield including an aerial photograph for the infobox, and the article should be ready. TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  From your later edit, I assume you have completed the changes and additions that you mention here. Please confirm. If so, I will change the assessment to B. Please note that a further assessor at another level might want those citations repeated in the following section caption or at the end of that section (not having had this explanation, which I think is sufficient for a B for this article now). Donner60 (talk) 06:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  @TheBestEditorInEngland: I reassessed the article as B class in line with my previous comment. If you have any further questions or response to my last comment, please let me know. Donner60 (talk) 05:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

  Many thanks, and sorry, I did not see the first message before your second one was sent. I will continue working on the article with the hope of bringing it up to GA status, and from there to FA status (eventually). it has been quite the project! Thank you again. TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

• 731st Airlift Squadron, expanded and referenced. Please review for B Class. Note: I have nominated the last image in the article (the MAFFS patch) for deletion on Wikimedia Commons. I moved it rather than removed it from the article pending the outcome of the deletion request. Lineagegeek (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Please provide a citation for the first bullet point list in the Lineage section. I assume, but please confirm, that the citations at the end of all the following lists cover all the points or entries in the lists. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 05:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I've made a formatting change to clarify that the Lahue reerence applies to all the entiries to the secction Lineagegeek (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

B class. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

• Byzantine–Serbian War (1090–1095) found it in the list of articles lacking structure. I expanded the lead, sorted out the references (what was cited and what was not, convert the rest of citations into sfn format), and some re-writing to smooth reading flow. Hopefully, now it is good enough. Let me know your comments for B-class.A.Cython (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  B class. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  If there are no other issues, please do not forget to update the new classification at its Talk:Byzantine–Serbian_War_(1090–1095). Thanks. A.Cython (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. I don't do it often but on a few occasions I have "put the cart before the horse" by striking the entry here but forgetting to update the talk page accordingly. That is what I did here. Whether I would have gone back and caught it later is doubtful so I appreciate the reminder. Now done. Donner60 (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  No worries, it happens to me all the time. I notified you because this change better come not from me :) A.Cython (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• Albert Rowe (physicist) Overhauled article. Added infobox and references. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  B class. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• Neboulos expanded (lead and main body), added references and a figure. Hopefully this is sufficient for B class.A.Cython (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  Was Neboulos actually a "skribon"? The nearest translation that I found in an online search was "servant" and the term has even more remote, non-military meanings. It does not seem as if it could have been a significant military rank. Also, if Neboulos was in command of as many men as defected to the Arabs, would he not have been a strategos? It seems likely to me that he would have served in a higher position than skribon in the Imperial Guard, which was not a long period of time before the time of the 692/3 battle. By then, he had to have already been an archon, which was a military governor who was also a strategos. He certainly could not have held the archon position only after the battle which resulted in his defection to the Arabs.
  

  I realize that Leontios, who was in command of the force that fought against the Umayyads in 692/3, was also a strategos. However, if Neboulous was in command of a large force sent from another Theme as reinforcement for Leontios, it seems to me that they both could have been strategi.
  

  I note in another article about Byzantine army ranks that there was another term (part of which was strategos) sometimes used for a commanding general overall for a force during certain times, possibly at the time of the 692/3 battle. That term is not used in the article or the online source that I looked at to describe Leontios.
  

  Can you clarify this - especially with focus on the possibility that skribon is not the likely word to describe Neboulos's rank in the Imperial Guard just prior to his position with a theme? Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  Hmm... I think the problem is that the literature is quite thin on this subject. Give me a couple days to sort this out. I need to go to the library to get access to the references used and assess what is going on. A.Cython (talk) 03:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  The sources are quite thin regarding Neboulos (also I am not an expert of Byzantine History, so please do not hesitate to correct me).

  • Regarding "skribon": It was from the original article supported by two sources. One of which I found, Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, but not saying anything about this. The second source was a german paper/chapter but I do not have access and I do not know german. Since none of other the sources mention it, I felt prudent to remove it along with the source.
  • Strategos or archon: From the sources I gathered that Neboulos was among the nobles and Justinian (mis)-placed a lot of trust upon him and the 30,000 men. Among his men, Neboulos would be effectively a strategos. However, within the Byzantine army, he was equivalent of a commander of a large unit. Neboulos corps was 1/3 of the total army. Significant but maybe not significant enough to be on equal footing with Leontios, probably being foreign as well. The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium describes him as "archon" which counts as military leader for non-Byzantines.
  • One of the sources added, states that the 20,000 defections is probably an exaggeration without explaining. If I am to guess, probably Justinian wanted to blame Neboulos' desertion (and any of the men followed him) for the defeat; actually, it was more like a draw because the Arabs also withdrew from the area afterwards.

  Anyhow, I rewrote some parts of the article. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. A.Cython (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  I have assessed the article as B class based on your changes. I think your revisions are the best way to handle the possible ambiguous, or possibly even erroneous, use of "skirbon" as a position held by Nebolous as originally expressed in the article. Obviously, since skirbon had a red link, there is no Wikipedia article that could help clarify the meaning and perhaps even the use of the term with regard to Neboulos. (I searched for a meaning mainly because of the red link, FWIW.) Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 06:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

• CSS Colonel Lovell- for the November contest. Expanded from a DANFS copy-paste; should be good for b-class now. Hog Farm _Talk 05:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  Approved B class LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 08:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  @LeChatiliers Pupper: - did you mean to leave b3=no on the article's talk page? Hog Farm _Talk 17:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  cheers thats corrected now LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

• Hashem Al-e-Agha, for the November contest. Expanded lede. Please assess, thanks! Dofftoubab (talk) 05:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  Im not saying your lead is wrong, I just wonder if

  "gained a fearful reputation  in Iraq as a skilled", if both the skill and fearful reputation is really supported by the article text

  Its difficult to say "only 3-4 ariel victories" but also noted as note caring about his personal record, a lot of the article and all of the descriptive stuff relies on the claims of a western author Cooper. How reliable is this source? Are there other sources?

  Others may think this is B class Im just not 100% sure. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  No worries. I didn't write most of the article, I was just expanding the lede. I removed the sentence with the subjective description. I can't speak for the sources, since I didn't write most of the article or go through the initial review process, just trying to bring up the structure for B-class criteria. Dofftoubab (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  okay, I think thats fine now Il assess it on the talk page LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

• Augustin-Marie d'Aboville French military officer, referenced and expanded mostly his political / post-Napoleonic War life/politics. @LeChatiliers Pupper: This appears to be your request; I am noting this for the purpose of a reply after assessment, especially if I don't get to it presently. (I can't assert that I have never failed to leave a signature; it happens.)

@LeChatiliers Pupper: B class. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 05:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

• Princess Charlotte-class ship of the line please assess for B class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Sturmvogel 66: - The beam figure varies between the article body (52' 9") and the infobox (52' 10"). Hog Farm _Talk 00:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  • What's an inch between friends? Fixed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

    • B-class Hog Farm _Talk 02:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

    • Hey that's what I've been telling my wife the last 14 years. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

• Battle of Oldendorf Updated, B? Robinvp11 (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Cites look good, structure is there, suitable supporting materials, from a non-expert it seems to suitably cover the scope of the battle, the lead up, and the aftermath. B-class. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

• Green Light teams ready for B class assessment.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
  • B-class, though the referencing could be improved - some books are cited without page numbers being specified and the referencing format is inconsistent across the article. Nick-D (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
    • Thanks -- I've got a copy of Jacobson's Surprise Kill Vanish at home, I can dig up page numbers for that entry at least. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

• Gattilusio — Genoese noble family, Please assess for B class. Thank you -Aeengath (talk) 08:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with the bot's B class assessment. I changed two instances of Gattiulsi to Gattilusio since they are the names of individuals. However is Gattilusi actually the plural form of Gattilusio as it appears to be used in some places in the article? Please change that if needed. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks @Donner60 for confirming B-class and catching the typos. Yes Gattilusi is the plural form (used collectively for the family) and Gattilusio is singular for individuals. -Aeengath (talk) 08:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

• Battle of Mosynopolis – overhaul of an article without citations (before changes), added sources + inline citations, a figure, expanded lead and main body. Please assess for B-class, any input to improve the article is also welcomed. I also had to rename the page to a more appropriate name. Thank you. A.Cython (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  Reassessed as B class. I made two minor copy edits. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 06:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

• Archibald Forbes - reassessment, previously missing B3 (structure). Thanks in advance ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  B class. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

• Valens Thessalonicus - 3rd-century Roman imperial usurper, Please assess for B class. Thank you -Aeengath (talk) 09:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  • B class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:24, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

• Kingdom of Thessalonica – Added references and citations to deal with B1 criterion. I also converted the citations to sfn format and sorted references by type. I also expanded slightly the lead and made other minor improvements. Assess for B-class. Thank you.A.Cython (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

• Battle of Serres (1205) – Overhaul of an article without citations. Added sources and inline citations, added a relevant figure, expanded the lead and the main body. Assess for B-class. Any input is always welcomed. Thank you.A.Cython (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

  B class LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 08:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

• Battle of Sebastopolis – Overhauled. Assess for B-class. Thanks.A.Cython (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  There shouldnt be citations in the lead generally unless information needed to summarise the article or define its scope is very controversial - I dont think this is one of those times.

  Generally also the lead also shouldnt contain any information that isnt in the article body, you may want to check this.

  I'm also sceptical of how the article deals with conflicts between older sources that are perhaps prone to exaggerate numbers vs modern sources. I would suggest doing it the other way around unless you have good reason to trust the older source eg discuss Charalampakis's concerns in the text not just as a note. Perhaps a little bit of a rewrite to the change the emphasises. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 08:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Please also check the military history assessment backlog for articles needing assessment.