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 • First Jewish–Roman War • 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

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 September 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.

• 326th Bombardment Squadron and 327th Bombardment Squadron. A lot of overlap in these two articles, but I believe independently notable with such issues as testing the YB-40, Medal of Honor, participation in nuclear weapons tests unique to the units but contributing to notability. Lineagegeek (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that the articles are about notable units and that they are independently notable. I assume that the C class rating now shown has to do with uncited entries in various lists. Each entry does not need a citation if the last citation (in some cases citation to the first item, the topic descriptive, has a citation, if those citations support all of the previous (or following) entries. Please confirm that the final entries verify all of the preceding items. Then B class for both. Donner60 (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I believe the lists are cited. For example, the Stations cite to Maurer, "except as noted". Maurer lists all stations, but does not include their WW II codes, which are cited to Anderson and Johnson. For the 326th, Maurer lists all assignments except for the brief attachment to the 4141st Wing before the squadron was formally reassigned, which is cited to Ravenstein. Lineagegeek (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Assessed B Class for both. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

• Battle of Goose Green - spent a few days cleaning up the references. (I should know better.) I think it qualifies for B-class now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

  I have reassessed as B class. I am puzzled by this sentence, which is supported by a citation: "He was superseded by Lieutenant-Colonel David Robert Chaundler, who was flown in from the UK and parachuted into the sea." Was Chaundler parachuted into the sea? Seems to be a rather dangerous way to transport a new commander to the battle area. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:01, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, he was! There were no airports in the Falklands in British hands capable of landing a Herc, so when the news reached the UK that H Jones had been killed, he was flown down and parachuted into the sea near the Carrier Battle Group. He was picked up by the frigate HMS Penelope, transferred by helicopter to the aircraft carrier HMS Hermes and then the landing ship HMS Fearless and eventually joined his new command ashore. He was, after all, a parachute regiment officer. Listen to him tell the story here! (Reel 1.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. Another incredible war story! Donner60 (talk) 04:41, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

• Harold Howes: a new article for a British flying ace of WWII, please assess. Thanks, Zawed (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

  B-class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

• El Saa'qa Forces. Did significant work expanding the article from the ground up in the past few days, while ironing out some issues with what little text was in the article, from lack of sources to WP:UNDUE content. My ambition was to elevate the article from Start-class. Forgot that military history has its own assessment so I listed it in the normal one where it was rated B. Feel free to make your assessment as well.--Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 15:12, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

  We accept the ratings of the PIQA (i.e the normal one). A contradictory assessment would be picked up by the bot. I have issued it with a B rating. Great work. Consider fixing the disambigaution links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

• Vincent Jones (historian) New article on a military historian that I wrote this morning. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  Added project banner and assessed B class. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  I started writing this with low expectations but it turned out fairly well. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

• Florent-Jean de Vallière - French artillerist. Please assess for B class. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 04:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  The lead and the infobox say he died 7 January 1759 but the body says 6 January 1759. (Confirmed by Grandjean de Fouchy “il mourut le 6 Janvier 1759). Birth place is missing in infobox but listed in Grandjean (Paris). Text says he first joined as a cadet in 1685 but infobox says service 1688–1759. For French officers I think it is common to list the cadet entry date as the start of service, not a major issue for B-class but worth checking. The article alternates between Florent-Jean and Jean-Florent, I'm sure this reflects the sources but one version should be chosen for consistency.

  [[Karlstein am Main|Dettingen]] links to the location, should be [[Battle of Dettingen|Dettingen]] instead. Same for [[Freiburg im Breisgau|Fribourg]] use [[Siege of Freiburg (1744)|Freiburg]] instead and "Freiburg" instead of Fribourg” which is in Switzerland. Same for [[Philippsburg]], [[Mons]], [[Namur]] which also link to towns, use siege pages where they exist: [[Siege of Philippsburg (1688)|Philippsburg]], [[Siege of Mons (1691)|Mons]], [[Siege of Namur (1692)|Namur]]. Remove [[Category:Artillery of France|Valliere system]], it is for materiel not people. Change {{DEFAULTSORT:Valliere, Jean-Florent De}} for {{DEFAULTSORT:Valliere, Jean-Florent de}} (lowercase de). Finally please note there's a a harv error warning for Chartrand Vol. 2. which needs fixing. Aeengath (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Aeengath: I believe I have made all the changes you requested. Chartrand vol. 2 was removed earlier. The title of the article Florent-Jean de Vallière is at variance with all the sources that say Jean-Florent de Vallière. This was already named before I updated the article. I will request a title change. Djmaschek (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for making those changes, please also update Dettingen and Freiburg in Later career then B class. Aeengath (talk) 07:05, 3 October 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 = 5 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 = 0 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 = 9 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 = 1 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	1,547	FL	151
A	675	AL	37
GA	5,730
B	21,481	BL	366
C	64,673	CL	1,020
Start	111,597	List	4,233
Stub	27,303
Total	233,006	Total	5,807
Other pages
Category		0
Disambig		0
Draft		0
File		0
Portal		0
Project		0
Redirect		0
SIA		5,899
Template		0
User		0
Total		5,899
Unassessed		5
Statistics
ω	1,083,453	Ω	4.537

• 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 177 FL 14 A 34 GA 280 B 8 C 9 Start 1 Assessed 523 Total 523 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 659 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 29 Start 82 Stub 5 Assessed 133 Total 133 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 601 Ω = 4.52 log • category