Talk:Battle of Romani/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 05:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Very impressive. Will probably want to take it to ACR next. Some comments below.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

DAB on "CIGS". Link fixed. --Rskp (talk) 04:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "Criticisms" section only deals with one criticism - that of failing to destroy the retreating Turks - although it acknowledges that there were others. Other criticisms of the conduct of the battle which should be mentioned in this section (there are some mentions and allusions elsewhere in the article):

Thanks for your comments. With regard to the 'Criticisms' section I didn't want to repeat the whole litany of criticisms surrounding the battle - just to focus on those which hadn't already been adequately dealt with in the article. These were -

The idea of the Ottoman attack being just a raid instead on a determined bid to dominate the Suez Canal.

The reasons why the Ottoman force was not captured.

The criticisms of Murray, Lawrence and Chauvel which were really extraordinary considering the battle was such an important strategic victory.

The criticisms of Lawrence for remaining at Kantara, his deployments at Romani and lack of control of the battle on the second day.

And Chauvel's response to give some balance and round off the subsection.

Regarding the extra criticisms you suggest:

1. The arrangement of the Canal defences and parcelling out the mounted troops among the different sections;
  I'm not sure what you mean - the whole of the Anzac Mounted Division was in the northern section under Lawrence.
  No, as noted in the article, the 3rd Light Horse Brigade started detached under No. 2 Section.
2. The communications which made it difficult for Murray to control the battle from Cairo or Ismailia, when the command arrangements required it;
  Murray was at Ismailia during the battle while Lawrence was at Kantara - I know much has been made of the breakdown in communications by some writers but what was the impact? The infantry knew what was expected of them, Chauvel and his brigade commanders had gone over the ground and knew what was expected of them and the reinforcements arrived where and when required - this was not good luck as some would have it but outcomes based on good solid planning and implementation.
3. The quality of training in desert warfare of the British infantry;
  I'm not sure what can be gained by labouring the point about the British infantry training, I've touched on this but who could have foreseen that they would be required to march out in the mid summer desert? And the difficulties regarding provision of water to them were as much to do with the terrain and climate as the unavoidable last minute concentration of the camels the day before the battle. (See McPherson for his view of getting the Egyptian Camel Transport Corps up and running)
4. The defective medical arrangements, for which Murray set up an inquiry afterwards.
  The lack of arrangements for the transportation of the wounded have been fully described elsewhere in the article.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please let me know your thoughts? --Rskp (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC) ps don't know what has happened to the numbering here. rp[reply]

The point is that you have a criticism section that does not cover all the criticisms, although they are elsewhere in the article.

Anyhow, I am going to pass the article. Cheers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I've changed the subheading to 'Some criticisms' to more accurately reflect its contents. All the best, --Rskp (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]