Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Jerusalem/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Progression

[edit]
  • Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
  • Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Initial comments/suggestions

[edit]

I've just taken a quick look at this article and I have the following suggestions for possible improvements to the article prior to completing the GA review (once these are dealt with, I will go through the other elements of the criteria):

  • there is a "citation needed" tag in the Ottoman counterattacks in late November section that probably needs to be rectified before the GA review;
These sections of the article with 'citation needed' were part of the article before I started my edit. As they contain interesting information I decided to preserve them but the sources remain a mystery. If its possible to identify who incorporated these sections they may be able to contribute the sources. --Rskp (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • as above, there is another "citation needed" tag in the Surrender of Jerusalem section;
  • as above, there is another "citation needed" tag in the Aftermath;
  • as above, there are two "citation needed" tags in the Summation of the campaign section;
It appears some of these 'citation needed' tags have been in the article for six months. Can you suggest a remedy? --Rskp (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this article cannot pass for GA with "citation needed" tags. As such, the remedy I suggest is two fold: search the web for reliable sources and, if they exist, add them in; search Google books, as you might find something there. Finally, if nothing can be found - the information will probably need to be removed. The only problem with doing this is that some of it may be necessary for the article to be considered "broad in its coverage" (one of the GA criteria). Thus, in reality, the only remedy is to try to find citations for most of the uncited passages. I've found refs for one of the assertions and I will try to help where I can, however, I've just started a new posting and am quite busy during the week so I'm really only online on the weekend so I might not be much help I'm afraid. Sorry. Having said that, I'm prepared to leave this review open for quite a while (a week is the normal length, but I don't mind extending it beyond that), if you think you might be able to dig something out of a library somewhere. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut the citation needed sections because most of the information they contain is mentioned elsewhere in the article. Regards, --Rskp (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, that looks fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • irregular capitalisation in sub heading: "Strategic Decisions" - per WP:Section caps it should simply be "Strategic decisions";
Fixed --Rskp (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Summation of campaign section, "The battle honour Battle of Jerusalem is still carried..." - this probably needs a citation, but also is the battle honour "Battle of Jerusalem" or simply "Jerusalem" (I think it would most likely be the latter, but I'm not sure);
Again this is a section that was part of the article before I started my edit so cannot comment.
I've found a ref for this and added it in for you. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations # 1, 3, 4, 107 and 109 (web citations) should have publisher and accessdate information added to them as per the example provided at Citation # 10. You could use {{cite web}}, but you don't have to, so long as the presentation style is consistent and includes the necessary details. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again these sources were part of the article before I began my edit. Might it not be better to have them in an external links section? --Rskp (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the details in for you. If this comes up again in a different review, all you need to do is click on the link and find the missing details (usually available on the website itself) and add them into the template (if you choose to use it - some editors don't like it). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit suggestions

[edit]

Hi, I've spent a couple of hours tonight looking over the article and I have the following copy edit suggestions: If you can work on these over the next couple of days, I will try to come back to the article sometime during the week (unfortunately I'm on duty all day and night Tuesday and Wednesday, but I might get to it on Thursday night. I'm on duty all day/night duty again Friday and Sunday, though, so unfortunately this review might take a while - sorry). Anyway, please read through my comments/suggestions below. Unfortunately they are a bit rushed, so if you can't understand what I'm saying, I apologise. Just let me know and I'll try to clarify later. Anything you disagree with, just let me know and we can discuss. Sorry for the long list. Cheers.AustralianRupert (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, some readers won't know who David Lloyd George was, so it should be clarified (this could be done simply as "David Lloyd George, the British prime minister, described the...";
Done--Rskp (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Battle of Mughar Ridge is overlinked (probably best only to link once in the lead and once in the body of the article);
There were only 3 links in the whole article. I've cut the one in the note. --Rskp (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • the use of emdashes is inconsistent. Sometimes you use them (for instance in Advance into the Judean Hills section) and then sometimes you use endashes for the same purpose, for instance see the "24 November - First attack" section) and compare difference;
They all look to be emdashes to me, which I think is what they should be. Not sure ... --Rskp (talk) 06:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked one more. Its only a minor thing and doesn't impact upon this review. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the citations "Grainger 2006, p. 223" duplicate ref (should be consolidated as others have been done per WP:NAMEDREFS;
Done --Rskp (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sondhaus 2011, p. 386" - full stop should be removed for consistency;
I don't understand.--Rskp (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright, I had already fixed it. I'd meant to delete this comment from here, but forgot in my haste. Sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first sentence of prelude probably needs a date for Battle of Mughar Ridge (include at the end of the sentence);
Done.--Rskp (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • the image "German soldiers in Jerusalem" could probably do with a date in the caption;
Done.--Rskp (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • grammar issue: "Allenby was aware of lack of accurate maps and the history" (perhaps: "Allenby was aware that he lacked accurate maps and that the history...");
Done.--Rskp (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • possible judgement/POV: "He boldly decided to " (probably best just to be "He decided to");
Agree. --Rskp (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • the link of the 7th Army is too late, should be moved to first mention;
Fixed also 8th Army.--Rskp (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • grammar: "which were then had to be unloaded on the beaches";
Done. --Rskp (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • grammar: "engineering sections, veterinary sections, field ambulances, labour corps, transport and supply sections" (should have "and" before "transport" as it is the last item in the list);
Done. --Rskp (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • wikilink Anzac Mounted division?
Link added.--Rskp (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and 32nd, 33rd, and 34th" (what size unit?) - coy probably, but you don't say. Also what's a coy - a company obviously, but the lay reader won't know, so it should be presented in full the first time;
Done. --Rskp (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • watch out for overlink of Desert Mounted Corps;
I could only find 2. Now there is one. --Rskp (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • missing word: "hope of ensuring the Ottoman army had little " (add "that" after "ensuring");
Done. --Rskp (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • redundancy: "city and force the Ottoman Army to evacuate Jerusalem" (replace last Jerusalem with "it");
Done. --Rskp (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • commas required here: "which had been captured on 16 November in the same direction as the" (before which and after November);
Done. --Rskp (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • missing definate article: "to the north of 75th Infantry" (add "the" before 75th);
Done. --Rskp (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • grammar: "While the 53rd (Welsh) Infantry Division (commanded " ("While" should become "At the same time, the");
Done.--Rskp (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • grammar (needs reordering): "To capture and secure the heights on either side of the main Jaffa to Jerusalem road at Amwas so the 75th Infantry Division could advance up the road was the first objective." (perhaps "The first objective was to capture...");
Done.--Rskp (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • wikilink "2nd Light Horse Brigade"?
Done. --Rskp (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOSNUM issue: "of up to 8 horses to " (should be "eight horses to");
Done. --Rskp (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • subjective: "In these terrible conditions the Ottoman forces " (probably should just remove "terrible" and let the reader decide);
Done. --Rskp (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • inconsistent spelling "Gurkha" and then "Ghurkas"
Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No. 1 Squadron carried out" - can this unit be wikilinked? Is it No. 1 Squadron RAAF, which is linked later? If so, please simply remove the later link and link on first mention;
Done. --Rskp (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • grammar: "until some days later, and to begin with by regiments, battalions, and brigades" - what does this mean? Please read this a couple of times and see if it makes sense. I think what you are trying to say is that it began as a small scale battle and grew larger as higher formations arrived, but I'm not sure, sorry. The wording doesn't seem clear to me;
Agree. Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • inconsistent spelling: "counterattacks" and "counter attacked";
Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • missing word: "In order to move huge formations a pause was unavoidable " (maybe "In order to move such large formations...");
Agree, thanks. --Rskp (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • inconsistent rank presentation: "German General Erich von Falkenhayn" and then later "Marshal von Falkenhayn";
I've cut "Marshal", ok ? :) Thanks. --Rskp (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • perhaps link "Essex Regiment";
Link added. --Rskp (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • wikilink "troop" so casual readers know what size miltiary formation this is;
Link added. --Rskp (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • subjective and POV: "The 11th (North Auckland) Squadron gallantly covered" (I suggest removing "gallantly");
Agree. Done. --Rskp (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • wikilink "battery";
Link added. --Rskp (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Casualties from this operation were 11 killed, 45 wounded, and three missing" - casualties for whom? The Ottomans or the New Zealanders? Probably best to clarify;
Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • please provide full name on first mention here: "Ottoman Eighth Army's fighting commander, von Kressenstein";
Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • probably need to clarify whose units here, I think: "Falkenhayn and the Ottoman Army sought to benefit from the weakened and depleted state of the worn out divisions which had been fighting and advancing since the beginning of the month" (perhaps insert "the worn out divisions of the British Empire which had...");
Done. --Rskp (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • full name on first mention here please: "Allenby maintained Chetwode's XX " (Chetwode);
Done. --Rskp (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is a cite error here: "of destabilisation created by troop reinforcements and withdrawals", which needs fixing (showing in red)
I can't see the red and I've checked the source 'It was inevitable that the Turks would seek to capitalize on this time of uncertainty and instability. Over the period of a week they launched a series of attacks ...' Bruce p. 159. --Rskp (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • the "Ottoman counterattacks in late November" section should probably just be "Ottoman counterattacks" given that two of the subheadings in that section talk about events in December;
Yes, thanks. Done. --Rskp (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • inconsistent presentation: "4/Northamptonshire Reg" and then "4th Northamptonshire Battalion";
Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Lewis gun fire with B/272 held them". What is "B/272"? It might need to be clarified - I don't know what it is, to be honest, so a casual reader probably won't either;
Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • wikilink "4th Light Horse Brigade"?
Done. --Rskp (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They managed to break out the same way they had entered the position" - I might have missed it, but were we told how they entered the position? I'm not sure. This might need to be clarified. My suggestion would be to simply reword it to "The broke out to the west...(or whatever direction they went - I'm making things up to illustrate my point);
Agree. I've cut the reference to direction. --Rskp (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • grammar: "Two brigades of infantry being substituted for four brigades of cavalry resulted in a sixfold increase in the number of rifles" (missing subject - probably best to make it a clause of the previous sentence);
Done. --Rskp (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Capture of Jerusalem section, most of the paragraphs begin in a similar fashion (mentioning December in some way), if possible you might consider rewording to avoid repetition;
Agree. Done. --Rskp (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • capitalisation: "Australian Light Armoured cars reported" (I think it should just be "Australian light armoured cars reported");
Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • capitalisation: "Chetwode, the Corps' commander" (I think it should just be "Chetwode, the corps' commander" as in this case "corps" is an improper noun);
Done. --Rskp (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • not sure about this: "ceased to be protected by Muslims". Sounds a little vague and possibly POV. Perhaps: replace "Muslims" with a less laden term, or one that doesn't make it seem that the conflict was about religion;
Agree. Done. --Rskp (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Aftermath section the wikilink of Baghdad should be moved to the first mention (two paragaphs up);
Done. --Rskp (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • this sounds awkward: "Allenby's great strategic success since the victory at Beersheba" (perhaps try "Allenby's greatest strategic success since hist victory at Beersheba");
Yes. Changed. --Rskp (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "General Allenby letter 4 December 1917 to Robertson" and "instructed Robertson to telegraph" - who is Robertson? Unless I missed it, the article doesn't clarify who he is;
Added. --Rskp (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • punctuation: "and the mounted riflemen which had been heavily involved" (I suggest adding a comma before "which");
Done. --Rskp (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Defence of Jerusalem section, the caption "Dead Ottoman soldiers at Tel el Ful" could do with a date if one is known;
Exact date not given. --Rskp (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • punctuation: "And the next day Chetwode commander of XX Corps ordered" (I suggest adding paired commas around "commander of XX Corps");
Done. --Rskp (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • this sounds awkward to me: "This newly-established British strategically strong defensive line remained" (perhaps try: "The strategically strong defensive line established by the British remained...");
Yes its terrible. I've had a go. --Rskp (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Summation of campaign subsection, possible POV: "when the great advance to Damascus and Aleppo took place" (I suggest removing the word "great");
  • grammar: "offensive on the Western Front at the Cambrai" (specifically "the Cambrai" - perhaps "the Battle of Cambrai" or simply "at Cambrai");
Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is grammatically awkward (I suggest trying to break up the clauses maybe): "It was also on the Gaza–Beersheba line, the first defeat of an entrenched army of experienced and successful troops who were supported by artillery, machine guns and aircraft by an enemy which approached over open ground."
Yes, have changed it hopefully its a bit better. Thanks a lot. --Rskp (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good now. Good work - I've made a few tweaks myself tonight (brought the lap top to work). Please review my changes and tweak as you see fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technical review

[edit]
  • no dabs found by the tools (no action required);
  • ext links all work (no action required);
  • some images have alt text, but others don't. While it is not a GA requirement, you might consider adding it in for consistency (suggestion only);
  • The Earwig tool reports a few possible copyvio links, however, upon manually checking these it is clear that they are Wikipedia mirrors that are actually mirroring this article: [3] (no action required). AustralianRupert (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  • Generally looks fine for GA. I'd suggest a copy edit from someone with fresh eyes before taking it to ACR or FAC, though;
  • (only minor) but I think that this is grammatically incorrect (over all the paragraph whole is still a bit awkward, but I'm not sure how to fix it, sorry): "And the victory over the Ottoman Gaza–Beersheba line, was the first defeat of an entrenched, experienced and successful Ottoman armies."
I've had another go at it. --Rskp (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now. Well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • with html mark up, inline citations can be added in Footnotes. For instance, look at the example in the List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A). It is not a requirement to do it this way, though, and the way you have it now should be fine for any subsequent reviews if you don't want to change it (suggestion only);
That looks really good but can't work out how its done - there is so much other editing going on in this complicated list and it appears the notes are done quite differently. --Rskp (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've added an example to the article (and self reverted it). If you look at the edit history and view this diff, you can see the mark up that I used. Like I said above, though, you are not required to do it this way if you don't want to. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've got the syntax copied and now understand how it can be done. Regards, --Rskp (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  • (only minor) I'm not sure that this is correct: "of a battalion of the 4th Northamptonshire Regiment" - more likely, IMO, to be "4th Battalion, Northamptonshire Regiment"
Not sure if this helps but in 1918 the 1/4th Northampton with part of the 162nd Brigade 54th East Anglian Infantry Division.--Rskp (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
from Mills': [4]. Not a major issue, though, IMO. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mills also refers to the 2/4th Battalion. I suppose you are right. I'll try to get another look at Falls which may clear this up. --Rskp (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • as above: "16th Devonshire Battalion" - probably 16th Battalion, Devonshire Regiment;
Just checked Falls - he calls them the "16/Devonshire, 229th Brigade". Does that confirm your view? --Rskp (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm fairly sure it does. T.F Mills' website has this: [5]
  • as above: "4th Sussex Regiment" - probably more likely "4th Battalion, Sussex Regiment";
That's how the IWM described the unit. --Rskp (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No dramas, that's fine - on Wiki its always best to follow the sources. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
from Mills' website: [6] AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  • this is quite a large article. Some editors might feel that the level of detail is a bit much, although I believe that many of the minor details help to provide the reader with a level of context which furthers their understanding of the conditions in the campaign. Nevertheless, before taking this article to ACR or FAC, I strongly suggest reading over the article and tightening it up a bit if possible. For instance, consider is Footnote 8 (the soldiers' quote) really necessary? There might be other examples, also. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  • No major issues, although I note that there was a brief issue with one of the file names. I think that the issue relates to the file name not being descriptive enough. Using descriptors that only consist of the AWM or IWM item numbers is generally discouraged as it doesn't provide people searching for images with enough detail to locate images. As a result, when uploading images in the future I suggest using a file name that either incorporates the item number and a brief description of the image (e.g. AWM 99999 Rupert Smith in the trenches July 1917). AustralianRupert (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
The photos and quote box have been moved and its much better.--Rskp (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:
  • I believe that this article now meets the requirements for GA status. Please read over the comments/suggestions I have provided in the criteria section, however, as I believe that there are still one or two improvements that could be made although they are not enough to hold up promotion. Keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot AustralianRupert without your interest this article would still be languishing at B level. Best wishes, and regards, --Rskp (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all. It's always a pleasure to work with you. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Jerusalem/GA1&oldid=637398642"