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

Comments by A.Cython

I am not familiar with the locale and era, so this review is from a casual reader mostly on prose.

• sand bars → sandbars (though I do not known Australian)

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• The Small Ships Section headquarters had five branches: personnel; supply; planning and development; construction and refitting; and maintenance and repair Why so many semicolons? Commas will do.

  I don't think that will work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• by the board, and changed remove comma

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• This work eased the task of the small ships, who also made their own charts. Why "who"; should it not be which?

  Y Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• Supplies were brought to Milne Bay in larger ships and then transferred to the small ships to be brought to Pongani or beyond. → Supplies arrived at Milne Bay on larger ships and were transferred to the smaller ships for transport to Pongani or beyond.

  Y Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• in the dark, and remove comma

  Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• she was able to be refloated

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• managed to unload → unloaded

  Y Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• This was not counting vehicles → This did not include vehicles

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• officers and official I assume you mean here officials (plural)

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• from 1895 and new comma before "and"

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• They were from an affluent yachting family, and their acquaintance with President Franklin D. Roosevelt may have played a role in the mission's ultimate authorisation under the codename "Mission X" I am a bit uncomfortable with the part about "may have played a role" as it appears speculative. I do not have access to the book, but is it possible to phrase Roosevelt's involvement a bit more clearly? A.Cython(talk) 01:29, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  Y Removed speculation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Nick-D

This is an interesting article. I'd like to make the following comments:

• "beyond the reach of assistance from a stretched United States Navy" - this seems a bit debatable given it would have been suicide for the USN to send its remaining battle fleet into the western Pacific at this time

  Y Some submarines did make the trip. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• The sentence starting with 'In early May 1942' is a bit over-complex

  Y Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• "but since these workers would be located in northern Australia in places subject to Japanese air raids and union rules prohibited working in war zones, the Small Ships Section was granted a special exemption allowing it to hire non-union labour" - this goes beyond what the source says, which refers to "strict union rules relating to hostile fire areas" rather then there being a prohibition. My grandfather was an engineer on board merchant vessels and a union member who regularly sailed into Port Moresby during this period and Australian trade unionists crewed ships in combat areas around the world, including the North Atlantic.

  Y Corrected. I wonder what the strict rules were... Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• On that topic, this this heads to FAC I'd suggest consulting specialist sources on Australian maritime unions to fact check and flesh out this issue as there were likely some complexities around it given the rather rule-bound and confrontational nature of labour relations at the time. From memory, the book Seamen's Union of Australia, 1872-1972: A History is well regarded though it was published by the union. The civil volumes of the official history also have some material on the issue.

  I've read the two-volume waterside workers history, but not the seamen's union. From memory, the two amalgamated in the 1990s. The book is in the library here, so I have requested it. There will be a delay while it is fetched and I consult it. I wasn't intending to take the article to FAC; I wanted to use it to get the bugs out of the A-Class cross with Swords processing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• Can links be made to the formation of this force and the broader mobilisation across Australia at the time? The Australian services also acquired or leased large numbers of civilian vessels and aircraft during this period given the emergency situation.
• "Until the airbase at Dobodura could be completed, the 32nd Infantry Division's supply line depended on the small ships" - further context on where the division was and what it was doing would be helpful

  Will do. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• For the legacy section, can you discuss whether the Australian members of this force were eligible for veteran's honours and pensions? These were denied to members of the merchant navy until the 1970s and 1994 respectively. There are sources on this at Axis naval activity in Australian waters#Remembrance that may be useful. Nick-D (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

  They argued that they should received honours and awards on the same basis as merchant seamen. This was rejected in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 before being accepted in 2009. They then became eligible for the War Medal 1939-45, the 1939-45 Star and the Pacific Star. I can add a bit more about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

  Added a bit more about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Review by Dumelow

Sorry, have been a bit busy and have not reviewed here for a little while. Some thoughts on the prose follow - Dumelow (talk) 13:07, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Primary sources

• "In Books V–VIII of the History of the Wars (published in 553 AD), Procopius described the Gothic War (535–554), and it is largely paraphrased by modern scholarship as it is the sole source that covered these events"

The publication date of 553 AD doesn't mesh well with a statement that it described a war ending the year after.

•  Done Removed the dates... Procopius ends his story with the Battle of Mons Lactarius, where the last Gothic king was defeated. The subsequent battle with the Franks is recorded by Agathias. However, modern historians include the engagement with the Franks in the war because the Franks were the third player in this conflict and because of their proximity to the events.

I found this sentence a bit clunky. Would "In Books V–VIII of the History of the Wars, published in 553 AD, Procopius described the Gothic War (535–554); as the sole contemporary[?] source that covered these events it is largely paraphrased by modern scholarship." be an improvement

•  Done Cameron provides the following The Wars, Secret History and Buildings of Procopius not only represent the main historical source for the reign of Justinian (AD 527–65), but frequently constitute the only source. Agathias is another contemporary historian, but his work continued the narrative from where Procopius ended his work.

• "He was Belisarius's assessor"

I would go with "Procopius was Belisarius's assessor, being an eyewitness to military engagements, having access to official information, and knowledge of military affairs" here, as the previous sub-clause was about modern scholarship.

•  Done

This is the first time Belisarius is mentioned, maybe he should be introduced as "Byzantine commander Belisarius"?

•  Done

I found the present tense a bit jarring here also. Consider if something like "he was an eyewitness to military engagements with access to official information and knowledge of military affairs" reads better

•  Done

• "In the first part of the History of the Wars, his view of Justinian is characterized by enthusiasm and optimism, following Belisarius as the main protagonist until he left Italy in mid-summer 540"

I didn't immediately grasp the meaning of the second bit. Perhaps "the narrative follows Belisarius..."?

•  Done

Background

• "After the death of Theodoric the Great in 526, the Gothic state entered into a period of instability."

Consider some geographical context for the Gothic state ("centred on Italy" or "in southern Europe" perhaps?)

•  Done

• " Her reliance on Byzantine advisers, her son's upbringing, and her efforts to secure power as regent alienated the Gothic nobility"

Do we know what about her son's upbringing? Presumably he was brought up in Byzantine style or something?

•  Done Initially, she had the upper hand in the education of her son. She wanted him to be Roman, but eventually let the Gothic nobility take over his education, which emphasized military matters.

Might be worth mentioning her son by name?

•  Done

• There is a run of five "her"s in the first paragraph that could do with being broken by at least one "Amalasuntha"

•  Done rewrote it

• 2His stratagem of inducing the Goths to surrender by offering him the Western imperial crown alarmed Emperor Justinian, who recalled him to Constantinople with Ravenna's treasury and the captive king Vitiges but denied him a triumph and reassigned him to the eastern front in advance of the Lazic War (541–562)"

It is not clear who the "him" is here. I presumed Theodahad as the last mentioned man but he was dead by this time

•  Done

I found this sentence a little long

•  Done broke it into two sentences

• "because he secretly offered to abdicate and offer the kingdom to the Byzantines"

I would look to avoid "offered" followed by "offer"

•  Done

• "Through the turmoil among the Gothic aristocracy, Ildibad's nephew Totila became king."

"Amid" reads better for me than "Through"

•  Done

• "Totila took the initiative and pursued them and defeated a larger Byzantine army at the Battle of Faventia in spring 542."

Can the first "and" be replaced by a comma

•  Done

• "In the meantime, a plague (541–549) weakened the Byzantine empire's ability to field armies,"

I would put the link as "a plague" to make it clear it leads to an article on that specific plague rather than plague in general.

•  Done

• "By 543–544, much of southern and central Italy had fallen under Gothic control, leaving Byzantine control confined to a few fortified cities"

Can this be simpler put as "by 544"?

•  Done

Can repetition of "control" be avoided, perhaps the second one could be "jurisdiction", "power", "dominion" or similar?

•  Done

• "With diplomacy exhausted and Byzantine relief efforts faltering, in 549, Totila reoccupied Rome, which had lost control in 547, and consolidated Gothic dominance over most of the Italian Peninsula and Sicily, prolonging the war until the Byzantine counteroffensive of 552 AD"

I found this a bit long. Also I think "which had lost control in 547" should be "which he had lost control of in 547"

•  Done

• "A third force in the Gothic–Byzantine struggle was the Franks, who sought to expand in northern Italy by exploiting the weakening of the Byzantine and Gothic authorities."

•  Done broke it into two sentences

Some geographical context for the location of the Franks would be useful

•  Done

• "sent a force of Burgundians to assist the Goths in the fall and destruction of Milan,"

Reads better to be as "...capture and destruction..."

•  Done

• "The following year, a Frankish army invaded northern Italy, attacking Goths and the Byzantines, but retreated due to disease"

Not sure why "the" is used before "Byzantines" but not "Goths"

•  Done

• "the Franks found the opportunity to occupy provinces at the Cottian Alps (part of Liguria) and the Venetia,"

Might be an ENGVAR think but this reads better to be as "in the Cottian Alps". I don't think Venetia should be prefaced by "the"

•  Done

• "After 547 and the loss of Rome to the Byzantines, Totila proposed marriage to an unnamed Merovingian princess, probably a daughter of Theudebert, but the offer was refused on the prediction that he would fail to secure lasting control of Italy after losing Rome"

I think you can lose the "after losing Rome" as you've already said "After 547 and the loss of Rome"

•  Done

Will continue from "Prelude" later - Dumelow (talk) 13:07, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your great comments. I am looking forward to your next set of comments. A.Cython(talk) 02:12, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Prelude

• "It started with the cousin of Justinian, Germanus, who had started recruiting an army for this purpose."

Look to reword to avoid repetition of "started"

•  Done

• "Germanus's sudden death in 550 resulted in a temporary postponement as Justinian delayed in selecting a replacement for the commander-in-chief for the campaign."

Do we know why he delayed? The way it is worded at the moment implies it was an intentional decision.

• Comment: Not clear. The empire was facing several fronts, and it was short of men to defend everything. Additionally, the most capable general would be Belisarius, but Justinian needed someone capable but also unable to challenge him.
  • Bury states The plans for the prosecution of the war were disconcerted by the death of the commander-in-chief, and Justinian appointed no one to replace him for some time.
  • Ilkka gives Justinian responded slowly, presumably because there were not enough men available for all of the fronts in Lazica, Salona and Italy. This is about an attack by Slavs in the Balkans right after Germanus's death.

• "command in mid–551"

I am not totally au fait with MOS:DASH so please check, but I think this should be a hyphen

•  Done

• "The Franks controlled the land route through Venetia but Narses failed to get permission to pass on the grounds that the Lombard troops in the Byzantine army were bitter enemies of the Franks."

I don't think "but" sits right here, "and" feels better to me. "on the grounds that" could be replaced with a simpler construction such as "as" or "because".

•  Done

• "Teia with the best Gothic troops hindered a Byzantine crossing of the Po River, positioning himself to strike any attempted passage."

Consider "Teia, with the best Gothic troops, hindered a Byzantine crossing of the Po River by positioning himself to strike any attempted passage."

•  Done

• "To bypass these dangers, Narses adopted a plan proposed by John the Sanguinary, the nephew of consul Vitalian, who knew the region well: the army would march along the river coast while a fleet sailed alongside, ferrying troops across river mouths as needed. Though slow, this strategy allowed the Byzantine army to reach Ravenna safely."

I think you could split this into two sentences at the colon.

•  Done

I was unclear what "river coast" meant. I initially thought it meant along the river but the wording about crossing river mouths seems to indicate they marched along the sea coast?

•  Done My bad, I meant sea coast.

• "By the early summer of 552, Narses was in Italy, aiming to march down the Via Flaminia to Rome."

This sat a bit strangely in the chronology for me, coming after the paragraph about crossing the Po river, which I would consider to be firmly in Italy (geographical region) (which should probably also be linked at your first mention of "Italy" to distinguish it from the nation).

•  Done

• "Narses planned to march directly against Totila, who was at Rome, and force a decisive battle with all his forces"

There is some ambiguity here as to whether "all his forces" means all of the Gothic troops or all of the Byzantine troops

•  Done

• "the usual coastal route from Ariminum to Rome through Fanum Fortunae and then Via Flaminia"

Via Flaminia is linked at second mention here

I would consider adding "along" before Via Flaminia as "through" doesn't really work for roads.

•  Done

• "Totila was in a bind because he could not protect Rome and other strongholds without splitting his forces, diminishing the strength of his field army"

"in a bind" is a colloquialism

I would make it clear what he chose to do as a result of this dilemma. Presumably he split his forces?

•  Done

Will continue from "Military Actions" later - Dumelow (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Military Actions

• "Totila had all his forces except for 2,000 soldiers under Teia and pitched his camp at Taginae"

I had thought from the final line of the preceding section that he had left fairly significant detachments at Rome, but does this mean of the men he marched with? Or perhaps I misunderstood and he took all his forces from Rome?

• Comment: Took all available forces he had in Rome and in the surrounding area. Though considerable Gothic garrisons remained in other cities (as shown by how many years it took Narses to reestablish Byzantine control), Totila assembled what he could.
•  Done

"Narses pitched his camp near Apennine Mountains and about 100 stades, c. 18.4 km (11.4 mi), away from Totila's camp"

Needs a "the" before "Apennine".

•  Done

• "In the center, he massed the dismounted Germanic mercenaries"

Were these cavalry fighting on foot (as "dismounted") implies infantry? If the latter I would go with "his German mercenary infantry" or similar.

• Comment: Yes, the Germanic cavalry was used as the core infantry. Procopius argues that this made them less likely to flee. I rewrote it.

• " On each wing, he stationed 4,000 foot-archers, who had a dual purpose. They could be used simultaneously as foot-archers and adopt a pike/spear phalanx formation"

Did they shoot from within the phalanx (as "simultaneously" suggests), otherwise a different word might be better

•  Done

• "The majority of non-foreign Byzantine troops were placed at the flanks, which were protected by the terrain features, and possibly caltrops."

Can we be more specific than "terrain features"? The map seems to indicate the flanks were anchored on hills.

• Unfortunately, we do not know much.
  • Syvänne p. 343 The wings were probably posted on rough or higher ground or on some other similar terrain that provided them with additional protection. ... The flanks of the Roman formation, the archers on foot, would have been protected by some terrain features, and possibly caltrops.

• The map shows significant cavalry bodyguard units behind the Byzantine frontline that are not mentioned in the description of the deployment. The map shows them as 4x the number of the 1,500 cavalry on the flank. Is this correct?
  • Comment: The map reproduces the map found in Syvänne's book. Bury (see here) and Haldon see (here) also produce battle maps, but each is a bit different. Any advice on improving the map is welcome.
• "forenoon" is archaic, "morning" is more likely to be understood by a wider audience

•  Done

• "Totila had given command to all his troops to use spears over any other weapon"

Either "given the command" or "given orders"

•  Done

• "Caught in the enfilading from both sides, the Gothic cavalry"

I would consider simplifying this as "Caught in enfilade, the Gothic cavalry..." to aovid repetition of "from both sides" from the previous sentence. You have linked enfilade so the reader can check it out if it is unfamiliar.

•  Done

• "The retreat became a rout, with the Byzantines pursuing the Goths and many prisoners were caught but later put to death, resulting in as many as 6,000 casualties occurring until nightfall."

I would consider splitting this sentence at the "and", and joining the short sentence about the death of Totila to the bit about casualties.

•  Done

Will continue from "Aftermath" later - Dumelow (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

• Just spotted you have one "Valerianus" in the Prelude section and "Valerian" elsewhere

Aftermath

• "Valerian then withdrew, where Narses ordered him to remain in the region and observe the remaining Gothic forces."

I am not sure "where" is right here. Consider an alternative or even just a semi-colon: "Valerian then withdrew; Narses ordered him to remain in the region and observe the remaining Gothic forces."

•  Done

• "The remnants of Totila's army fled north with Teia to Ticinum, where the treasury Totila had stored there."

The last part of the sentence isn't grammatical. Consider "where Totila had kept his treasury" or similar

•  Done

• "The defeat of the Goths triggered another request from the Goths north of the River Po to the Franks to intervene."

Is the trigger here Taginae or Mount Lactarius? If known consider "The defeat at Taginae/Mount Lacarius triggered ..."

• Comment: I would say Mount Lactarius as it was the last battle of the Goths, but one can effectively say that it was both battles.
  • Syvänne p. 346 After Narses had defeated the Goths, their remnants who lived north of the Po sought the help of the Franks. The author does not distinguish which battle was more important.

Scholarly assessment

• "The historian Philip Rance argued that infantry remained the core of Byzantine armies despite the growing importance of cavalry, and attributed this misconception to the fact that sixth-century warfare produced few decisive pitched battles in which infantry played an obvious tactical role and Procopius's narrative disproportionately emphasized mounted combat, marginalizing infantry actions in battles and sieges."

Is a bit long. I would consider splitting at the first comma.

•  Done

Lead

• "Narses anticipated ruses and prevented this by keeping his army in the original defensive position."

Reads better to me as "anticipated this ruse"

•  Done

Infobox

• As he died away from the battlefield, Totila should probably be marked  (DOW) rather than  †

•  Done

• You note "6,000 killed" but the main text has "6,000 casualties" which is not necessarily the same thing.

•  Done

• As there is no obvious feature to locate the battlefield to, I think the coordinates probably need a citation

• Todo... I removed the coordinates and added an explanatory note in the infobox summarizing a discussion in Bury's book.

That's everything I noted. I'll wait for you to respond then give your changes a quick lookover but can't see any major issues with this one. Excellent work! - Dumelow (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

• @Dumelow: Thank you for your thorough review. Please let me know if I adequately addressed your comments. A.Cython(talk) 00:13, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

Prose

• Coccas charged at Anzalas, aiming with his spear at Anzalas's stomach...
  • Could we drop "with" here?
• "The remaining cities in Italy under the Goths started to fall, notable cities were Compsa in 555 and Verona in 561." → "The remaining cities in Italy under Gothic control began to fall. Notable examples included..."

Bottom line

• @A.Cython: That's all from me. I hope you're having a fine weekend. Happy to support. MSincccc (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
  • @MSincccc: Thank you for your suggestions and support. A.Cython(talk) 00:13, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Comments by A.Cython

This is an interesting article and I did not know much about it, so my comments would be on prose and MoS.

• South American republics, and distanced from them because → South American republics and distanced himself from them because (remove comma and add "himself")
• in popular culture remove "in"
• and in October boarded add commas before "in" and after "October"
• Beginning in November 1811, Royalist forces began pushing back the Republicans → "In November 1811, Royalist forces began pushing the Republicans back from the north and east."
• outlining what he believed to be the causes of the Venezuelan republic's defeat and his political program. → outlining the causes of the Venezuelan Republic's defeat and his political program.
• Bolívar was made the → Bolívar became
• powerbase → power base
• isolated, and disillusioned remove comma
• Peru the Colombian add comma after "Peru"
• Bolívar arrived, however, and he I do not follow... either remove "however" or the "and"
• Over 1829, → In 1829,
• its cathedral → the cathedral or the city's cathedral
• for abolishment of slavery → for the abolition of slavery
• Latin America, to remove comma
• in overthrowing monarchy → of overthrowing the monarchies
• parties respectively. add comma after "parties"
• "It was the pardo Piar who needed to be reined in... he had grown ever more stubborn and unmanageable, ignoring Bolívar's appeals and instructions" [406] "Division was unacceptable. Race, though it had plagued the Americas through three hundred years of difficult history, was no longer a justifiable reason for discord." [406] I think this is a bit WP:QUOTEFARM, particularly in the frequent use of quotes in the rest of the article.
• Birthplace of Simon Bolivar in Caracas. remove "."
• had limits[390]. → had limits.[390]
  • December 1825[366].
  • the Liberator[353].
• in September.[386]. the last "." has to go A.Cython(talk) 21:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Support by Dumelow

I don't have a great deal of knowledge about pre-Mediaeval history so please take this as a layman's view on the text - Dumelow (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Procopius of Caesarea is the major Greek historian of Late Antiquity"

Do you mean Greek language or Greek nationality, a link would clarify

Our article doesn't capitalise "Late Antiquity"

• My understanding is that the authors emphasize the Greek aspect (language and origins) to differentiate from the Latin-speaking Romans. At the time both the Latin- and Greek-speaking citizens of the empire were considered Roman. The previous century is also considered the transition from Roman (Latin-speaking+pagan) to Byzantine (christian+Greek language). The character of the latter has its origins in 330 but only at around 500 the Byzantine character became dominant. I provide some quotes for context:
  • Bury p. 419 That there is almost as much to tell about thirty years of the sixth as there is about the whole of the fifth century, is due partly to Justinian's activity as a legislator, but chiefly to the pen Procopius. It was one of the of Justinian's glories age to have a writer who must be accounted the most produced excellent Greek historian since Polybius.
  • Cameron p. 2 He is the major Greek historian of Late Antiquity, perhaps even of Byzantium as a whole, and the proper understanding of his works is crucial to many issues, not least that of the transition from the ancient to the medieval world.

• "In Books V–VIII of the Wars, Procopius"

I would use History of the Wars which is how you refer to it in the bibliography

You only list books V through VII in the bibliography, does book VIII not have much to say? In any case I feel it should be in further reading.

•  Done changed to History of the Wars. The book VIII talks about the events after Belisarius captured Ravenna, i.e., rise of the Goths with Totila until the end of the war. I also added the last book in further reading.

• "These advantages placed him in a unique position to reconstruct the wars in the East, Africa, and Italy"

Is it possible to be more specific than "the East" as the location could mean something different to different readers.

•  Done changed it to Middle East

• "His view of Justinian ranges from enthusiasm and optimism in the first part of the Wars to open hostility in the Secret History"

You haven't introduced the Secret History and it is not mentioned in the bibliography, if not cited from diretcly to it should be in Further reading, at least I think. From the sounds of thinhs it is a later work. Do we know the dates when Procopius wrote each one?

•  Done rewrote it
• Comment: The last book of the History of the Wars was published in 553. The Secret History was probably finished in 551 (according to Bury and others), but it was not published. It was intended to be published right after the death of the emperor, but the emperor outlived Procopius and so it was forgotten in the library. It was discovered centuries later.

• "Even in the Wars, there is a transition at the point when Belisarius left Italy in mid-summer 540 AD, presumably due to Belisarius's unbroken loyalty to Justinian, followed by the resurgence Gothic resistance led by charismatic Totila, who became the protagonist and a tragic hero in Procopius's narrative in the latter part of the Gothic War."

I found this hard to follow and it might benefit from splitting. I think you need "resurgent" rather than "resurgence" here

•  Done

• "While Theodoric asked the then Byzantine Emperor Zeno permission to wear the royal regalia"

Are we talking Roman Imperial regalia here or something else?

•  Done I meant Roman

• "the Ostrogothic kingdom was the strongest barbarian nation occupying lands of the Western Roman Empire."

I would link barbarian for context

I think this should be "former Western Roman Empire"?

•  Done

• "Her reliance on Byzantine advisers and her son's Byzantine education and the assassination of her political opponents to maintain her position as regent until her son came of age,[16] however, alienated segments of the Gothic nobility."

I found this a bit long and with too many "and"s

•  Done

• "Her son died in 534, prompting the opposition to bring up the succession question"

I found this a little bit passive, can it be written more directly? Perhaps it could be combined with the first part of hte following sentence.

 Done rewrote it

• "Soon after Amalasuntha was deposed and later murdered by Theodahad in 535, Justinian considered this as a casus belli justification to intervene militarily in Italian Peninsula."

Missing "the" before "Italian Peninsula"

•  Done

• "The Goths failed to counter the Byzantine offences, while at the same time, Theodahad was in secret negotiations with Justinian"

Presumably this should be "offensives"?

•  Done

Read down to "Prelude" so far, will continue when I can - Dumelow (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• You are inconsistent in capitalising "Siege" in "Siege of Rome" and "Siege of Arminum", using both forms for both phrases

•  Done Fixed

• John (nephew of Vitalian) should be linked at first mention in the main text, he is only linked in the lead and infobox at the moment

•  Done added

• You use Vitalianus but our article is at Vitalian (consul), consider if this is the more common name? Likewise with Martinus who is at Martin (magister militum per Armeniam)
  • Comment: The literature is kind of divided between the two. For example, Bury (in original publication in 1928) uses Vitalian and Martin, but Ilkka Syvänne (2021) uses Martinus and Vitalianus.

• "Belisarius, anticipating that the Goths would attempt to besiege Ariminum, sent infantry forces to replace John and his cavalry unit, ordering John along the Via Flaminia road with a thousand horsemen to arrive in Ariminum before the retreating Goths did"

I was confused by this sentence. I thought John was already in Ariminum? Did he and his cavalry move to join Belisarius before then returning with (more?) cavalry? The next sentence seems to indicate he was ordered away from Ariminum.

•  Done rewrote, Belisarius was in Rome and John at Ariminum. He send a group (with horses) to quickly reach Ariminum give the orders to John. This was possible because the Gothic army was moving much more slowly and trying to avoid Byzantine forts.

• "In response, Vitiges had the trench filled with faggots before moving the siege over it."

Missing "tower" after "siege"

•  Done added

• "The weight of the tower caused it to sink slightly into the trench as the faggots were crushed and the earthwork, made of the dirt out of the trench, which was built behind it, stopped the advance entirely"

Consider "spoil" as a shorthand here and consider mentioning the earthwork earlier to simplify this sentence

•  Done broke the sentence into two

• "Belisarius, after securing the surrounding area of Rome, took his main army and marched north in late June."

I would switch "surrounding" and "area" here, ie. "the area surrounding Rome"

•  Done per your suggestion

• "along with 7,000-strong reinforcements from Constantinople"

I don't think you need "-strong" here

•  Done removed

• "Later in the summer of 538, the Goths lifted their siege of Ariminum and moved to Ravenna. Belisarius and his army entered Ariminum around noon."

Strange that we know the time but not the date. I assume this is as per Procopius?

• Most of the dates are given by secondary sources not from Procopius. The "noon" timing is coming from Procopius.
• source And Belisarius with his whole army arrived at midday.

Read down to Aftermath section now

@Dumelow: I was on transit early July somehow I missed the notification that you provided comments. Thank you for the review. Please let me know if I adequately addressed your comments or I need to revisit something. A.Cython(talk) 05:56, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I have likewise had a busy couple of weeks. Final comments below:

• No need to apologize, it is me who is thankful for investing your time in helping me to elevate this article.

• "In 539, Belisarius proceeded to secure strongholds in the surrounding region of Ravenna."

This reads better to me as "the region surrounding Ravenna"

•  Done

• "The stratagem spooked Justinian"

From the context I have presumed he was wary that Belisarius had ambitions for the Western Empire, but might be worth making it clear what he was worried about

• Comment: We have no evidence that Belisarius had such ambitions, at least according to the story written by Procopius. Even when he had the chance to wear the purple when the Goths offered to him the crown of the Western Roman Empire in 540, he used their offer to capture the capital in the name of Justinian. It was Justinian's fear of a successful general because this was the Roman tradition for the succession of power. Opponents of Belisarius used this fear of Justinian for their own advancement, which is why Belisarius was recalled to Constantinople a couple of times to clear his name. The later stages of the war were completed by Narses, who was the chamberlain of the emperor and an eunuch (no royal ambitions), effectively solving the "popular general" problem by having a civil servant of no ambition for the throne to lead the imperial armies.
•  Done I provided a bit more context

• "The general's departure was also needed on the eastern front against the Persians in the upcoming Lazic War (541–562).[55] However, the premature departure of Belisarius and the failure of Justinian in appointing a sole commander-in-chief in Byzantine forces in Italy reignited the Gothic resistance and prolonged the Gothic War by more than a decade"

I would consider rewording this slightly as "The general's departure from Italy had been required so he could serve on the eastern front against the Persians in the upcoming Lazic War (541–562).[55] However, Belisarius's departure and the failure of Justinian to appoint a sole commander-in-chief of Byzantine forces in Italy reignited the Gothic resistance and prolonged the Gothic War by more than a decade"

•  Done per your suggestion

• I would add a sentence after this to indicate how the war ended and who was victorious
  •  Done expanded the sentence, it was a stalemate or indecisive.
• "Historians argued that Belisarius's actions during the Siege of Ariminum ... Specifically, they praise his ability as a commander"

I think you may fall foul of MOS:AWW here if you do not name the historians

•  Done

• "Historian J. B. Bury said"

Consistency. You name him as "John Bury" elsewhere. It would also be worth giving a date for Bury's opinion, he is not the most modern of the sources and his writing will well pre-date the 1958 date of the publication you cite.

• True, I am using a 1958 edition (there more modern ones) but the original is from 1923.
•  Done Changed the name to be consistent. I added the original year of publication to the citation + mentioned in the main body

• "Historian Ilkka Syvänne placed the break of the Siege of Ariminum as a prime example of Sun Tsu's principle of "Subjugating the enemy without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence."

I would consider rewording this: "Historian Ilkka Syvänne considers the breaking of the Siege of Ariminum to be a prime example of Sun Tsu's principle that "subjugating the enemy without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence.""

•  Done

• In the lead "In early 538 and during the Siege of Rome (537–538), the besieged Byzantine General Belisarius sent John the Sanguinary to raid Picenum region."

Would be better with "the" before "Picenum"

•  Done added

• "Belisarius wanted to avoid direct battle engagement because the Goths outnumbered the Byzantine forces."

I would go with "...wanted to avoid a direct engagement because..."

•  Done

• "moved to besiege Ariminum in March 538"

The main text doesn't give any dates for the start of the siege, the infobox says "late spring" which would be around May

•  Done Most sources that I knew when I wrote this did not include an exact date. It had to be after mid-March but before June, when Belisarius left Rome to meet Narses. Anyhow I made another search in the library and found one source that states the date, April. So I replaced the date in the infobox and it is mentioned in the main body along with a citation.

• I wasn't sure why notes b and c were separate as both discuss the size of the Gothic army, can they be combined into one note that is called up twice?
  •  Done Merged

That's everything from me, apologies for time taken to complete this, have been a bit busy offline - Dumelow (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Dumelow No apologies needed, we all have real life obligations. Thank you for your thorough constructive review, I really do appreciate this. I believe I have addressed your comments. If I missed something or I need to revisit something, please let me know. Again thank you. A.Cython(talk) 03:20, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Dumelow Let me know if you have other comments. Thank you. A.Cython(talk) 02:22, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, still catching up after being away for a bit. I've reviewed the your comments above and changes to the article and all looks good to me. Happy to support this nomination - Dumelow (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you for your constructive comments for both articles. I do appreciate your input. A.Cython(talk) 20:27, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

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)

Support by Dumelow

• We typically link ranks (general, divisional general) at first mention

• Linked

• "Divisional General Francisco Menéndez, an idealist liberal,[5] fled El Salvador for exile in Guatemala after the coup failed, but he returned shortly afterwards when Zaldívar issued an amnesty. Menéndez returned to Guatemala after rejecting the new constitution adopted in 1883, which allowed Zaldívar to seek re-election."

I wasn't quite sure what the situation was here. Did Guatemala reject the constitution or is this just Menéndez's opinion? I don't think you need to say "Menéndez returned to Guatemala" in the second sentence as you've just said he'd returned in the previous one. I think the second sentence would be better just as "Menéndez opposed the constitution of 1883 that allowed Zaldívar to seek re-election". Was the date for the election set? Presumably this would have been by the people not the junta?

• Reworded

• "Zaldívar was succeeded by Figueroa as provisional president since he was the second presidential designate (third in the line of presidential succession)"

Why didn't the vice-president or first presidential designate succeed? Did they also resign?

• Not sure. Ángel Guirola was Zaldívar's vice president (and president of the legislature) and did indeed become acting president when Zaldívar visited Europe in 1884. Cañas Dinarte II says that Guirola did "mediatory work" during the revolution and leaves it at that, and then fled to Europe once Menéndez was victorious. And I don't know who the first presidential designate was.

• Indalecio Miranda, Mardoqueo Sandoval, José Domingo Arce, Miguel Brioso, Narcio Talavera, Manuel Estévez, Narciso Avilés, Carlos Molina,

As generals these people are presumably notable and worth red linking

• Linked, though I doubt they'll ever get pages.

• "The same day, 1,000 government soldiers commanded by General Miguel Brioso engaged Rivas' troops on the El Chachacaste hill near Cojutepeque, but Rivas' counteroffensive forces Brioso's army to retreat."

Should be "forced", not "forces"

• Fixed

• I feel a map noting the locations stated in the text would be useful to the reader

• "On 26 June, Menéndez issued a manifesto to the Salvadoran people published in the Diario Oficial newspaper."

I don;t think you need "issued" and "published" in the same sentence, consider if "Menéndez published a manifesto to the Salvadoran people in the Diario Oficial newspaper" conveys the same meaning?

• Reworded

• "Menéndez rejected the 1885 constitution"

You've not previously mentioned this constitution (only the 1883 one), what did it contain?

• Sources don't elaborate. He apparently just didn't like it and told the Constitutional Assembly to try again.

• "the 1886 constitution, that among other things, banned immediate re-election and established a unicameral legislature"

I think you need to state "re-election of the president" here, unless it applied to all elected positions

• Added

• "Menéndez won the 1887 presidential election in a popular vote."

probably worth mentioning that he was unopposed

• Added

• I assume there are no sources mentioning comparative strengths of casualties of the opposing forces

• None that I could find

• "The city was captured by Rivas' 6,000-strong indigenous army"

MOS:'S requires this to be Rivas's

• Fixed PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 17:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

That's all I have on the text, the article looks to be in good shape - Dumelow (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Dumelow: That should be everything responded to. I'll get back to you on the map. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 19:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks good, supporting. There's an issue with one of your changes: "On 26 June, Menéndez issued a published to the Salvadoran people in the Diario Oficial newspaper". If there's not a suitable map on Commons and the current boundaries of El Salvador are broadly the same as those during the revolution you could do a pushpin map (I did similar at Natal Native Pioneer Corps) - Dumelow (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Ahuachapán

Armenia

Atiquizaya

Chahuapa

Chalatenango

Coatepeque

Cojutepeque

El Bejuco

Ilobasco

Izalco

La Unión

Nahuizalco

Nueva San Salvador

San Andrés

San Salvador

Santa Ana

Santo Domingo

Sonsonate

Suchitoto

caption here

@Dumelow: Here is everything mapped, but it turns into an illegible mess. I was thinking about creating a map in Inkscape instead if that would work better. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 23:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I see what you mean! Yes, a bespoke map focused on the west of the country might be best to cover the main area of operations. If Inkscape doesn't work out, you can try Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop, but not sure how quick they would be able to get to it. In any case not an issue for A-class promotion. Excellent work - Dumelow (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

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)

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 22 July 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)

@Gog the Mild: Supporting now? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Can I please check if you support this nomination? Nick-D (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Sturmvogel_66

• Overlinking of battalion and Anzac in the lede and overlinking in general
  • There is still some overlinking. Adding this script will easily allow you to find them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• 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?

• You need links for Allies of WW2, Commonwealth, coast-defence guns, and anti-aircraft
• Be consistent about adding parenthetical German names to units
• Provide links to all ranks on first use--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

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)

  @Sturmvogel 66, I have fixed all the issues you brought up. History6042 😊 (Contact me) 22:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Long is out of alphabetical order--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

    @Sturmvogel 66, I fixed the alphabetical ordering issue. History6042 😊 (Contact me) 01:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• All page ranges need to use an en dash, see cites 10, 21, 27, 42, 45
• Cite 19 should be in title case to match the rest of the references
• Cites 4, 10, 11, 15, 18, 21, 28, 31, 42 spot checked--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Sturmvogel 66, I have fixed all the issues you brought up. History6042 😊 (Contact me) 20:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Australian sign at Forty Second Street on Crete 1941 (AWM P03731 001) (cropped).jpg, File:Damien Parer and Ron Williams stopped for a tea break on 42nd Street.jpg: PD AustraliaGov - okay
• File:Battle of crete.svg - CC 3.0 - okay

All images have appropriate licences.

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Support Comments by A.Cython

@History6042: Not really confident in modern warfare knowledge but I will try to review this one.

• join in on the attack (i think the meaning is preserved with less words)
• 450 metres convert template?
• Maori officer's, account Greek → Maori officer's account, Greek (move the comma)
• Aera note that this means in Greek "air", though it could be described as "Like the Wind", perhaps adding this would help the reader as most non-Greeks would not know what it means.
• The Australians too, were ordered to return to the road by Walter Miller, commander of the C Company, after he realized his troops had no cover and that they had already pushed the Germans far enough back. I find it hard to follow this sentence, care to rewrite?
• "suspicious" many → "suspicious" that many
• McGeoch's patrol were → McGeoch's patrol was
• and running south → and ran south
• Tsikalaria lined → Tsikalaria, lined (add comma)
• south east → south-east (add a dash, as this is how write elsewhere in the article)
• Soviet Union wikilink, this is not an existing country
• Retimo initially I thought this was a spelling error, but, correct me if I am wrong, you meant Rethymno. Apparently "Retimo" is Rethymno in Italian. To avoid confusion perhaps it is better to keep the WP:COMMONNAME as used in English and add a wikilink (note that you have Rethymno airfields higher up in the paragraph)
• On 21 May the first landings began I am confused. Elsewhere you say that it was on the 20 May when the Germans launched the attack. The relevant citation says 21 May, but elsewhere where I briefly looked says 20 May.
• (however it was known locally as Tsivalarion Road) perhaps make this an explanatory note using the efn template or something equivalent
• this claim was denied by the Australian official historian Gavin Long in his book Greece, Crete and Syria. He accepted that in the midst of the battle soldiers were clubbed and bayoneted. However, he denied Anzacs had killed the surrendering Germans. Walker also denied Germans had been killed illegally. I think this needs a relevant citation/attribution
• Some sources have publisher+location while other have only publisher info. Choose one format and keep it consistent. For example, Fort, Adrian (2009) does not have location
  • (optional) It might be helpful to separate the sources between different categories, i.e., books, journals, reports, web.
• is it possible to place a number to A few Greek soldiers? A.Cython(talk) 04:25, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I have fixed all of your comments, except for the ones addressed later. I think the issue of the landings being launched on 20 vs. 21 May means that the German's launched an attack on the 20th which landed/arrived on the 21nd. Additionally, the source for "A few Greek soldiers" only says "Hellenic soldiers were heard shouting 'Aera!'". @A.Cython, History6042 😊 (Contact me) 21:34, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

If you want to add some context here, a couple of references:

• https://www.britannica.com/topic/evzone In November 1940 an evzone regiment turned the tide of the Italian invasion by trapping and destroying a crack alpine division at Metsovo Pass, using their traditional tactic of sweeping down from the ridges while screaming their battle cry “Aera!” (“Like the wind!”).
• https://cdnth.thenationalherald.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/889_22_11532-1.pdf p. 15 As for the phrase “aera,” it was the signature battle cry of the Greek army during WWII. According to Giorgos Damianos, although first used by the Cretan state guard in 1908 to introduce a note of levity following a drill, it began to take on the form of a war cry during the Balkan Wars of 1912-13, and became synonymous with the bravery, vigor, and heroism of the Greek soldier by 1940. In its simple English translation, it just means “air,” but the cry of “aera” – the modern version of the ancient Greek battle cry of “alala” – instilled courage and joy in the hearts of the charging Greek soldiers, who would cry out “aera” to assure their fellow soldiers that the enemy’s fire was missing the target and hitting only the air!

Comments Support by Pendright

• @History6042: I expect to start reviewing this article within a ferw days. Pendright (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
  • P.S. - Is this written using B/E? Pendright (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

    @Pendright, yes, it is written in British English. History6042 😊 (Contact me) 01:09, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Lead

• The Battle of 42nd Street was fought on 27 May 1941 during World War II on the Greek island of Crete between an attacking force of Australians and New Zealanders (Anzacs) and German troops.

Suggest: The Battle of 42nd Street was fought between Australian and New Zealand (Anzac) forces and German troops on the Island of Crete on 27 May 1941, during World War II. The substance of the sentence has not changed only the sequence

Add the followg sentence after the opening sentence -> The location took its name from a sunken dirt road south-east of Chania, unofficially named 42nd Street by British troops after the 42nd Field Company, Royal Engineers, who had been stationed there. This tells readers up from how the name was derived

• A week later, after the British and Commonwealth forces defending the island were forced to withdraw towards Chania, a force of several understrength Australian and New Zealand infantry battalions established a defensive line along 42nd Street south-east of Chania, forming a rearguard for the withdrawing troops.

Add comma after 42nd Street-the information that follows is supplemental

• On 27 May, as a German battalion advanced towards the road, the Anzac defenders carried out a bayonet charge that inflicted heavy casualties on the German attackers, which forced them to withdraw and briefly halted the German advance.

advance towards the road -> spelling out the road you mean will leave no doubt which one you ate referrimg to

• General comment

Spliting the lead paragraph right before the action begins on 27 May will separate the strategic background and defensive setup from the actual engagement

Background

• Greece became a belligerent in World War II when it was invaded by Italy on 28 October 1940.[1]

Link belligerent

• A British and Commonwealth expeditionary force was offered to support the Greeks, however the Greeks did not immediately accept the offer and the personnel did not begin to arrive until 4 March the next year;[2] this force eventually totalled more than 60,000 personnel.

Suggest -> A British and Commonwealth expeditionary force was offered to support the Greeks, but they did not immediately accept the offer, and personnel did not begin to arrive until 4 March the following year.[2] This force eventually totalled more than 60,000 troops.[3]

Allied forces

• British personnel began arriving on Crete on 1 November 1940, after departing from Alexandria in Egypt.

Suggest: -> After departing from Alexandria in Egypt, British personnel began arriving on Crete on 1 November 1940. Better chropogical flow

• Winston Churchill ordered three new airfields to be created on Crete, and they were ready by February 1941, as were additional coastal defense guns and anti-aircraft units.

First mention of Churchill -> tell readers who he was - linking is for other aditional info

• Prior to the Battle of Crete, Axis victories in Greece had given the Germans aerodromes roughly arranged in a semi-circle, with the closest few being 60 miles (97 km) north of Crete.

Suggest -> Prior to the Battle of Crete, Axis victories in Greece provided the Germans with a semi-circle of aerodromes, the closest situated just 60 miles (97 km) north of the island.

Axis forces

• It was ordered on 25 April 1941 by Hitler's Directive 28, despite the Germans not knowing the Allied forces and underestimating them at 5,000 personnel.

First mention of Hitler - briefly intoduce him to readers and link Hitler

• The attack [plan] was to have three parts, Group West focusing on Maleme airfield, Group Central on Chania, Souda Bay, and Rethymno airfields, and Group East on the airfield of Heraklion.

Suggest the above addition

Battle

• During the initial stages of the fighting on Crete, the Australians defending Heraklion managed to defeat the attack there and the troops at Rethymno were able to blunt the attack, holding it for more than a week; however at Maleme the Germans managed to wrest control of a vital airfield, and as a result began flying in reinforcements of airborne and mountain troops.

By my count, this is a 60 word plus sentence -> Suggest breaking it up into two sentences

• The road was lower than the surrounding land and was nicknamed 42nd Street, after the 42nd Field Company of the Royal Engineers, who had previously camped there, and the film 42nd Street.[a][38][39]

What is the last clause meant to say?

• Early on the morning of 27 May, around 8:00, Lieutenant-Colonel George Dittmer, commander of the Maori Battalion, called a meeting with Lieutenant-Colonels Theodore Walker of the 2/7th and John Manchester Allen of the 21st and they decided that if the Germans approached their battalions, they would engage them and charge.

8:00 -> In B/E miitary parlance it is written as 0800 or 0800 hours

• At roughly 11:00 am, the 1st Battalion of the 141st Mountain Regiment was seen approaching 42nd Street, roughly 400–500 strong, by the 2/8th.[40]

• Substitute one roughly of the two used
• 11:OO AM -> 1100 (or as eleven hundred hours).

• The patrol advanced about 500 metres after draping their helmets with green silk from parachutes to act as camouflage.[40][41][42]

Could add yards

• The Germans fought back until the Maoris advanced some 250 metres, then they began to flee.

Add yards

Aftermath

• Observation: Aftermath usually covers the results, reckonings, and longer-term consequences once the fighting stops. Right now, the first paragraph still has the battalions actively disengaging, crossing the White Mountains, and fighting rearguard actions before the surrender on 1 June. It might help readers track the timeline if the physical withdrawal has its own breathing room before transitioning into the aftermath proper.
• @History6042: This is it for now Pendright (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

@Pendright, I have addressed all of your comments. History6042 😊 (Contact me) 02:50, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

@History6042: Supporting - Pendright (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2026 (UTC)