Talk:Battle of Beersheba (1917)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 23:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for taking this on, Cerebellum. All the best, --Rskp (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All right, here are my comments:

Lead: into the open eastern flank The eastern flank of what?

Added info. --Rskp (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose: attacks on Beersheba, the Ottoman defensive line, and the subsequent advance. Are you saying that that Beersheba was the Ottoman defensive line? If so attacks on Beersheba (the Ottoman defensive line) and the subsequent advance might make that a little clearer.

Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enver Pasa: Shouldn't this be spelled Enver Pasha?

Yes, thanks. fixed. --Rskp (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linking: You link Wadi Ghazza in the fourth paragraph of the Background section, consider linking it in the second paragraph where it is first used.

Moved to first mention. --Rskp (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV: Be careful about taking the side of the British. Consider changing the sentence Such an attack against rudimentary EEF defences on the northern edge of the Negev could have been disastrous to something like Such an attack against rudimentary EEF defences on the northern edge of the Negev could have been disastrous for the EEF; it would not have been a disaster for the Ottomans.

Edited along lines suggested. --Rskp (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose: Instead they constructed permanent defences stretching from the sea at Gaza to Shellal on the Wadi Ghazzeh. Who is "they"?

Info added. --Rskp (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose: Railhead had been 30 miles (48 km) from Gaza, but by mid-April the line had reached Deir el Belah, with a branch line to Shellal completed. This doesn't seem right, should it be "The railhead"?

Yes, done. --Rskp (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude: It was moved to Huj as a consequence of EEF aerial bombing it was moved in July. Again, this doesn't seem right.

Reworded. --Rskp (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Defences: Why is there a "dubious - discuss" tag in the Beersheba defences section?

This information was in the article when I started to work on it and it seemed interesting, but the citation link has nothing to do with it. The tag was added a while ago, so I suppose the whole lot should be cut. --Rskp (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have cut reference and information which was no longer cited. --Rskp (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing: There are two "citation needed" tags in the "EEF" section, please provide sources for those statements.

First one edited to more closely reflect the sources quoted. The second one was added by me when unsourced information was added by another editor. I've cut the info and the cn tag. --Rskp (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary moves: Please provide a source for the quote There is evidence that they [Yildirim Army Group] were fairly accurately informed of the British dispositions.

Added. --Rskp (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes: Also specify a source for "multiple dimensional phased attack" in the Bombardment section.

Added. --Rskp (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties: Do you have any casualty figures for the Ottomans?

Not for this battle. A figure of 25,000 is provided by Falls for the period from 31 October to the capture of Jerusalem. --Rskp (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added prisoner numbers to Casualties subsection and to infobox. --Rskp (talk) 02:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing: Another citation needed tag in the "Tel el Saba" section.

I added this when information was added by another editor without giving a citation. I've cut the info and the cn tag.

Notes: It's up to you and the other editors of this page, but I thought the note about whether this was the last cavalry charge was useful and I would support keeping it. (It was removed with this edit.)

Thanks for that, I've reinserted it. --Rskp (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is good over all and extremely comprehensive. In the beginning the prose was a little rough, particularly the comma usage, so I made a few changes. You might try reading the article aloud and placing commas at natural pauses. However, it got a lot better as the article went on. I would have passed the article but right now it doesn't meet GA criterion #5 (stable) because of the large number of recent edits and the dispute on the talk page. I'm placing the article on hold to allow you to address my comments above and let things simmer down a bit, but I'm confident that the page can be brought up to GA standards without too much more effort. Great work on this and on the Sinai campaign in general! --Cerebellum (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind remarks about the campaign. Just wondering if you have any other concerns with Beersheba. --Rskp (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all! You have addressed all my concerns, and I am happy to pass this article as a GA. Good work! --Cerebellum (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I really appreciate your time and interest. All the best, --Rskp (talk) 03:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]