Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

The assessment department of the Military history WikiProject focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's military history articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

Overview

Introduction

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

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

Criteria

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

Assessment criteria for prose articles

Class	Criteria	Assessment process	Example
FA	The article meets all the featured article criteria. Detailed criteria A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes. It is: well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard; comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.	Featured article candidacy	USS Chesapeake (as of October 2021)
A	The article meets all of the A-Class criteria. Detailed criteria A1. The article/list is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate. A2. The article/list is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail. A3. The article/list has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. A4. The article/list is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant. A5. The article/list contains appropriately licensed supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where relevant. See also the A-Class assessment & criteria FAQ.	A-Class review	Spendius (as of October 2021)
GA	The article meets all of the good article criteria. Detailed criteria A good article is: Well-written: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Good article review	Punic Wars (as of October 2021)
B	The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. Detailed criteria B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. B3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. B4. It is free from major grammatical errors. B5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. See also the B-Class assessment & criteria FAQ.	Individual review	American Civil War (as of January 2024)
C	The article meets B1 or B2 as well as B3 and B4 and B5 of the B-Class criteria. Detailed criteria B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. B3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. B4. It is free from major grammatical errors. B5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. See also the B-Class assessment & criteria FAQ.	Individual review	Yellow Turban Rebellion (as of October 2021)
Start	The article meets the Start-Class criteria. Detailed criteria The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following: A useful picture or graphic Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article	Individual review	Battle of Monnaie (as of October 2021)
Stub	The article meets none of the Start-Class criteria.	Individual review	Geng Yan (as of October 2021)

Assessment criteria for lists

Class	Criteria	Assessment process	Example
FL	The list meets all the featured list criteria. Detailed criteria Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. Comprehensiveness. (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. (b) statements are sourced where they appear, and they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists and includes at minimum eight items; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. (c) Accessibility. It uses proper formating to be accessible to all readers. Bulleted and unbulleted lists and tables are structured correctly. Visual media, if included, utilize alternative (alt) text. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.	Featured list candidacy	List of protected cruisers of France (as of October 2021)
AL	The list meets all of the A-Class criteria. Detailed criteria A1. The article/list is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate. A2. The article/list is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail. A3. The article/list has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. A4. The article/list is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant. A5. The article/list contains appropriately licensed supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where relevant. See also the A-Class assessment & criteria FAQ.	A-Class review	List of Partisan detachments in Bosnia and Herzegovina (as of October 2021)
BL	The list meets all of the B-Class criteria. Detailed criteria B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. B3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. B4. It is free from major grammatical errors. B5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. See also the B-Class assessment & criteria FAQ.	Individual review	List of British colours lost in battle (as of October 2021)
CL	The list meets B1 or B2 as well as B3 and B4 and B5 of the B-Class criteria. Detailed criteria B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. B3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. B4. It is free from major grammatical errors. B5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. See also the B-Class assessment & criteria FAQ.	Individual review	List of participants in the Nine Years' War (as of October 2021)
List	The list meets the List-Class criteria. Detailed criteria The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element; it has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following: A particularly useful picture or graphic Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article	Individual review	Atlanta campaign Confederate order of battle, second phase (as of October 2021)
Stub	The list meets none of the List-Class criteria.	Individual review	List of aircraft of Greece in World War II (as of Febuary 2025)

Processes

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

Individual review

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

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

Peer review

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

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

Good article review

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

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

A-Class article/list review

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

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

Featured article/list candidacy

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

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

Instructions

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

{{WikiProject Military history|class=}}

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

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

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

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

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

FAQ

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

1. What is the purpose of the article ratings?

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

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

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

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

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

4. Who can assess articles?

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

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

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

6. How do I rate an article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. Aren't the ratings subjective?

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

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

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

Requests

Requests for A-Class review

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

Tailhook scandal • HMS Hyperion (1807) • Operation Matterhorn • Manhattan Project feed materials program • Battle of Guam (1944) • 2002 Marib airstrike • Zungeni Mountain skirmish • 1979 Salvadoran coup d'état • Operation Forager logistics • Bertrand_Clauzel • Emperor Tenmu • SMS Prinz Heinrich • USS Missouri (1841) • 1994 Serb Jastreb J-21 shootdown • Second Battle of Lexington • John Cecil Russell • 1931 Salvadoran coup d'état • HMS Lizard (1757) • Battle of Edington • 2001 Biggin Hill Airshow disasters

Requests for assessment

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

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

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.

• 64th Air Division, expanded and referenced. Please review for B class. Lineagegeek (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  I believe that I am required to ask for a citation for each bullet point to assess an article with this format as B class. That is what the bot would do and assessors have been following that routine. It may well be that citations otherwise in the lists are the ones that would be cited. Unlike a table or list, where a citation at the first sentence or caption or even the end of the list suffices, that needs to be obvious to differ from the bot (if the bot had gotten to it). In this format, it does not appear to me to be obvious that a citation covers more than one entry. I do not like giving this assessment for such a good, comprehensive article. But I will need to leave it as C class until the citations are added. I hope this will not cause much extra work for you. As explained in an edit summary, I capitalized Arctic and linked the Arctic article. Donner60 (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  Donner60 Thanks for the suggestions. Unlike most of the USAF unit articles I work on, this unit has important subordinate units (like the SAW battalions and fighter control squadrons) that are not mentioned in AFHRA lineage documents. While I have tried to get source for these (and why this article has an unusually high number of citations for a USAF unit). If you'd let me know (not here, but on either my or the article talk page) what specific elements of lists you are concerned with, I'll see if I can improve the citations, or give up and leave it as a C. Lineagegeek (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. I see by your contest entry that you have come to a conclusion about this, so I will close the request. Donner60 (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

• Viktor Petermann — a Luftwaffe pilot, please review. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  B class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:43, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

• Francis Richard Lee Mellersh: new article for a British flying ace of WWII, please assess. Thanks, Zawed (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Beaten by the bot again.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
• Elkanah Greer - Confederate cavalry and staff officer. Rewritten for the November contest. Hog Farm _Talk 04:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  B class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

• Henry Frederick Campbell, one for the current drive. In Category:Military history articles needing attention only to structure, I have added a lead, a little more detail and new source and it might now make B-class - Dumelow (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  B class. Hog Farm _Talk 20:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

• 5th Massachusetts Battery - reassessment, improved on B3 (structure). Thanks in advance ...GELongstreet (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

• @GELongstreet: - I agree that B3 is now met but I would argue that B1 is not without citations for the list of officers in the infobox. Hog Farm _Talk 18:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, made it into a section with references. ...GELongstreet (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Reassessed to B-Class. Hog Farm _Talk 19:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

• Spanish cruiser Isla de Luzón - reassessment, improved on B3 (structure). Thanks in advance ...GELongstreet (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  B3 is good but I think one or two things need fixed for B1 - it has just one uncited statements at the end a of a paragraph

  "Small for a protected cruiser, she was often called a gunboat by 1898." LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense, added two from back in the day and a modern one referring accordingly. ...GELongstreet (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

great work B-class LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• 6th Kansas Militia Infantry Regiment - for the current drive; originally had no inline citations. Hog Farm _Talk 18:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  B class. I rewrote the sentence about the disbandment of the militia as follows: "Curtis revoked the martial law declaration on October 25. On October 27, the governor ordered that the Kansas militia be disbanded by their commanders after being marched to the counties from which their soldiers were raised.{{sfn|Petherbridge|1902|pp=3, 12}}." Edit summary: "change sentence concerning disbandment of militias in line with source; number of dates did not add up precisely as written." If you think different wording would be better, please change it accordingly. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC) Donner60 (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Army of the Frontier - an expansion project from April 2024 that I forgot about that never had the lead rewritten. Finally finished and taken here. Hog Farm _Talk 21:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Hog Farm: Adding one or more illustrations would make this an easy B class. See talk page. Djmaschek (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  B class. Djmaschek (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• Rainbow Bluff Expedition This was an unreferenced article to which I added two sources and some footnotes - for the contest. I made a few small edits. It is a short article, but there is little, if anything, additional or of special note in the cited sources. I looked at a few other American Civil War naval history books and found nothing else. I think it ticks the boxes for B class but perhaps there might be disagreement on the class assessment due to its length. Please assess. Donner60 (talk) 05:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Donner60, Still a bit thin for B (currently rated Start); B1: Referencing is greatly improved from none but it could benefit from one additional source to support the background and result maybe this one and/or this one .

  The description of the expedition (which predates your edit) follows this account in Civil War Naval Chronology, 1861–1865 (U.S. Naval History Division, 1971)[1] not Long, The Civil War Day by Day as currently cited, it may be worth checking whether that was the intended citation for accuracy under B1.

  For B2 the expedition’s events are covered but there’s no background or aftermath. The lead could be expanded slightly to show where and why, maybe something like: The Rainbow Bluff Expedition was a Union naval operation on the Roanoke River in North Carolina on 9 December 1864 during the American Civil War. The Union force attempted to capture Rainbow Bluff, a fortified Confederate position, and destroy a reported ram under construction at Halifax. The expedition was abandoned after two vessels were sunk by Confederate mines

Hope that helps! -Aeengath (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Aeengath: Thanks. I will look at the other sources. I concentrated on citations for the article as it was written - thinking of the main purpose of the background drive to work on unsourced article and not that the article might be expandable. I thought at the time there was not much more to say about it, but it does seem like more can be added. I'll check the citations.

Browning does have a little more about the background, mostly about the planned move by troops toward Fort Fisher, past Rainbow Bluffs. I will need to look back to see if he gave the reason why the movement was not made. I remember that it was also mentioned as another factor, besides the torpedoes and reinforced Confederate land force, in the withdrawal of the remaining Union naval force.

I'll look at the sources you cite, as well as Browning again, for background. As Hog Farm notes, it might be worth a look at sources other than the naval history.

I might leave it at start as sufficient for the drive and come back to it at a later time when there is not as much going on with the backlog drive. If I don't look at it later today, I will strike through the assessment request for now and resubmit later. Donner60 (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Donner60 That makes sense, given the focus of the backlog drive on adding citations, with expansion optional, what you’ve done surely meets the goal. -Aeengath (talk) 09:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Donner, I've checked a couple of my books to see if I can help with this but it doesn't seem useful. I can't find anything in the index of Trotter Ironclads and Columbiads: The Civil War in North Carolina: The Coast; Barrett The Civil War in North Carolina has a single note with the text General Butler wanted the Federal troops at New Bern to engage in a cooperative movement at the time of his attack on Fort Fisher. It was to consist of an attack on Rainbow Bluffs, followed by a "forced march" on Tarboro. and then points to an 1883 memoir as containing further information. The note is placed in the text in the context of Butler bringing troops down from Virginia for operations against Wilmington/Fort Fisher. Hog Farm _Talk 15:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. As noted, I will look at the sources cited by Aeengath. I only looked at sources about the naval war and Browning plus Long's brief note were all that I could find. So it may be that more general sources, in addition to the ones Aeengath cited, may have some information about this expedition. See my other reply just above as well. Donner60 (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Battle of Goodrich's Landing - for the November contest. Ed Bearss's Vicksburg trilogy has the fight with the 1st Kansas taking place on June 30, but several of the other sources disagree (and the June 29th date fits much better with the timing of Ellet's movements). Hog Farm _Talk 02:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• Mohammad Ali Safa — for the November contest. It was in the backlog for Military history articles needing attention only to grammar, which I have since fixed, as well as having cleared up obviously dubious claims from the article. The B-class checklist on the article's talk page was only failed on grammar (supposedly) but I also find that dubious. Still, it is worth a try since I've fixed the grammar now. TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking back at the article I'm starting to wonder if it is even noteworthy and if it should be deleted? It seems to just be an article about your average Joe junior officer. It looks to have been created in 2019 by a very pro-Iranian account and even though grammar was the only point on the B-class checklist it missed, it was filled with obvious propaganda like how this man singlehandedly destroyed 160 Iraqi tanks in just one month of the Iran-Iraq War before being killed, when Iraq only had around 1,000 tanks in total in 1980 and the list goes on and on. TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

See WP:TASNIMNEWSAGENCY; the principal sourcing for the article is currently two articles by a deprecated news source so the current sourcing is a non-starter for criteria b1. Hog Farm _Talk 02:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I've started an AfD due to its lack of notability, but at least that can clear it from the backlog. TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• 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)

• *Joseph Hayes (general) - reassessment after partial rewrite, previously missing B3 (structure). Thanks in advance ...GELongstreet (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  @GELongstreet meets B across all six criteria. -Aeengath (talk) Aeengath (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Thomas Cooper-Slipper: new article for British WWII flying ace, please assess. Thanks, Zawed (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Assessment backlogs

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

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

• The current status of Category:Military history articles with no associated task force = 7 articles without task forces. After task forces have been assigned, articles are automatically removed from the category.

• The current status of Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists = 0 articles with incomplete checklists. After the checklists have been completed, articles are automatically removed from the category.

• The current status of Category:Military history articles with missing B-Class checklists = 0 articles with no assessment against the B-class checklist. After the checklists have been started, articles are automatically removed from the category.

Statistics

Articles		Lists
FA	1,556	FL	151
A	670	AL	37
GA	5,778
B	21,541	BL	366
C	64,896	CL	1,019
Start	111,697	List	4,251
Stub	27,448
Total	233,586	Total	5,824
Other pages
Category		49,983
Disambig		2,313
Draft		389
File		4,740
Portal		14
Project		210
Redirect		25,856
SIA		5,903
Template		8,668
User		100
Total		98,176
Unassessed		1
Statistics
ω	1,086,072	Ω	4.536

• Quality operations: A bot-generated daily log which lists articles Reassessed, Assessed and Removed.
• Popular pages: List of top articles with the most frequent views, updated monthly.

Task forces (general topics)

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

Task forces (national and regional)

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

Task forces (periods and conflicts)

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

Special projects

Operation Majestic Titan assessment statistics Operation Majestic Titan pages by quality Quality Total FA 201 FL 14 A 34 GA 303 B 70 C 106 Start 154 Stub 10 Assessed 892 Total 892 log • category

Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I) assessment statistics Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I) pages by quality Quality Total FA 179 FL 14 A 32 GA 280 B 8 C 9 Start 1 Assessed 523 Total 523 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 657 Ω = 1.29 log • category

Operation Majestic Titan (Phase II) assessment statistics Operation Majestic Titan (Phase II) pages by quality Quality Total A 1 GA 5 B 8 C 21 Start 29 Stub 2 Assessed 66 Total 66 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 276 Ω = 4.18 log • category

Operation Majestic Titan (Phase III) assessment statistics Operation Majestic Titan (Phase III) pages by quality Quality Total FA 16 GA 6 B 18 C 21 Start 14 Assessed 75 Total 75 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 220 Ω = 2.93 log • category

Operation Majestic Titan (Phase IV) assessment statistics Operation Majestic Titan (Phase IV) pages by quality Quality Total FA 4 GA 4 B 13 C 11 Start 12 Stub 2 Assessed 46 Total 46 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 163 Ω = 3.54 log • category

Operation Majestic Titan (Phase V) assessment statistics Operation Majestic Titan (Phase V) pages by quality Quality Total A 1 GA 4 B 12 C 28 Start 82 Stub 5 Assessed 132 Total 132 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 597 Ω = 4.52 log • category