Talk:Battle of Sharon/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: WikiCopter (talk · contribs) 18:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Sorry so long in responding. My computer died halfway through reviewing, so now I have to reconstruct my review from scratch. Here are the main points I remember.[reply]

Thanks for taking this on. Much appreciated. --Rskp (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Points cleared

Text is confusing in places. Examples: "set piece Battle of Megiddo" and "Western Front style bombardment",

These sections of the intro have been rewritten to hopefully clarify the confusion --Rskp (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Cemal appointed Cemal Kucjuk Pasha to command the Fourth Army." (Cemal is never mentioned except for this sentence),

A link has been added to identify this Cemal --Rskp (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar is still bumpy in places. I suggest a GOCE guy to come in and copyedit. Examples:
- List in Background section should be converted to prose and mention should be made that this is only a list of battles in the Palestinian region.

Reorganised into prose. --Rskp (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- First sentence of Reorganisation of EEF needs reorganisation (I'm American, I changed my spelling for you)

Rewritten to clarify meaning. Thanks, I'm Australian so often a bit confused, sometimes its color and sometimes its colour, but I think programme has become program! --Rskp (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"By April 1918, 35 Indian infantry and two Indian pioneer battalions were preparing to move to Palestine.[14] Those battalions with numbers from 150 upwards, were formed by removing complete companies from experienced regiments then serving in Mesopotamia to form new battalions."

This whole paragraph has been added by another editor who insisted during a virtual edit war on the information as it stands. Can you advise on the etiquette as I'm not sure how to proceed. --Rskp (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. Jim Sweeney appears to be annoying. Perhaps revise this paragraph and reduce it in size somewhat, but don't provoke another edit battle. WikiCopter Returns 22:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I really dare not touch it as I'm amazed its been as stable as it has. --Rskp (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consider editing down Reorganisation of EEF. See criteria 3b for GA. I think this section goes into too much detail, and some of this detail could get moved to the EEF article.

I agree with you about this section but as it was the subject of a virtual edit war I am very reluctant to touch anything added by the other editor. --Rskp (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In July 2012 before the copy edit and edit war, the article looked like this [1] --Rskp (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. At least you can try to edit it down a bit. It really is confusing to the casual reader, and it is too detailed. WikiCopter Returns 22:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I can only agree. I've requested Dank have a look at it and I'm hopeful that Dank may be able to negotiate a way round the threat of another edit war. --Rskp (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many instances of sloppy grammar. I really suggest posting a request at GOCE, especially as they are having their backlog drive now.

The article was copyedited by the GOCE. I've been reluctant to approach GOCE since because references were mucked up and the copyedit completed in a day. See comments regarding GOCE in first GAR. --Rskp (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. I did see the first GAR. Please see Peacemaker67's comment at bottom. WikiCopter Returns 22:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Yes, I did re edit the article and am currently addressing the comma problem. But the 750 edit war have taken their toll and I don't want to spark any renewal if I can help it. --Rskp (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They were supported by British Army Machine Gun Corps squadrons,[27] and by the 3rd Light Horse Brigade Machine Gun Squadron,[37] the 4th Light Horse Brigade Machine Gun Squadron,[38][39] and the 2nd New Zealand Machine Gun Squadron attached to the 5th Light Horse Brigade." All in all, what was attached, and what wasn't?

Yes, I agree this is an instance where the other editor has insisted on a high degree of precision. --Rskp (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. Please clarify sentence.
  1. Done the best I can. The information regarding the British Army Machine Gun Corps squadrons was added by Jim Sweeney and Jim Sweeney has requested a clarification of this information. --Rskp (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Jim Sweeney has cut all references to machine gun squadrons. --Rskp (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for 2nd opinion on grammar. Wiki Cop ter Returns 00:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't offer an opinion on grammer as I haven't read it in detail but I did notice that the infobox lacks details such as strength and casualties - something which is pretty standard for most similar articles. Is this information available? If so it should be included. Anotherclown (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the GA1 reviewer that failed it the first time I am loath to influence this review, but... I respect Rskp's concerns about the previous GOCE, however the grammar remains problematic and needs to get fixed somehow. IMO grammar is a common issue with these SP Campaign articles (mostly sentences that are too long and unclear construction) so short of getting our in-house copy editing guru Dank's attention on this, I have previously suggested that Rskp approach User:Diannaa or another GOCE copyeditor that she recommends. Has this happened or not? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for suggestions. Putting onhold pending copyedit. I suggest Dank or Diannaa too. I like Dank's quality. Wiki Cop ter Returns 22:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have requested Dank copyedit the article. --Rskp (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Copyediting is only thing left. Wiki Cop ter Returns 19:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)~~ See Anotherclown's comments above. Wiki Cop ter Returns 19:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand Dank. There are no plans to submit this article at A-class level. Diannaa has declined to copyedit it saying that its too long for a GAR. [2] Is length a criteria? Should I approach GOCE? --Rskp (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stats requested by Anotherclown added. --Rskp (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE requested. --Rskp (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Points requiring more attention

Copyeditor comments

Comments. I've had a look, and I can't copyedit something unless I know what the writer was trying to say, and in many cases here, I don't know. Starting at the top:

"The Battle of Sharon is together with the Battle of Nablus": What does it mean that two battles are together?
- Yes, that's right
"also known as the Battle of Megiddo": Both battles together are known as Megiddo, or the second one?
- both battles together are known as the Megiddo battle
"all being fought": "all" generally means more than two, but I only see two here.
- Well, yes we are talking about three battles
"large formations": what large formations?
- It would overcomplicate the first sentence to list them. They are referred to in the next sentences.
"set piece battle": that's a little jargony, that is, people who aren't well-read on military matters probably won't know what it means
- True, so I've included a brief explanation
"attacking and responding to movements by the opposition, according to pre-existing plans": I'm not sure, but I think this means they went into battle with detailed orders on their expected moves and counter-moves.
- Yes, that's right preexisting plan as in set piece battle
"The Battle of Sharon part of this great battle": great as in big, or great as in important? If "important", that's probably out per WP:WORDS. Great doesn't commonly mean "big" these days.
- Great in both senses, important and big
"The Battle of Sharon began on 19 September ... During this Battle of Tulkarm ... eventually captured during the Battle of Tabsor": I can't tell anything from this about the interrelationship of these battles ... were Tulkarm and Tabsor part of the Battle of Sharon?
- Yes, they were both part of the Battle of Sharon section of the Battle of Megiddo, along with the engagements at Arara, Afulah/Beisan, Nazareth, Jenin, Samakh and Tiberias, and Haifa.
I'll stop there. There's just not a lot I can do here, yet. - Dank (push to talk) 21:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hope I've clarified things a bit for you. Its unfortunate that the complexity of these battles can't be explained in the infobox but a consensus ruled against it. --Rskp (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the first paragraph to hopefully clarify the introduction. --Rskp (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is better; it needs some work, but the current lead plus your explanation here gives me a clearer idea what happened. I'm having a different problem as I skim down the page ... I can't figure out why most of what's included is included, that is, I'm not being told what the relevance is to the surrounding material, or the battle. I can't think of a fix for this; I don't have time to ask that many questions ... and probably, there are people who are more familiar with the material who wouldn't have to ask so many questions, which might get annoying. So ... I'm sorry, I don't have much help to offer here. - Dank (push to talk) 01:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you are referring to either. It is a copyedit that is needed. I'm sorry too! --Rskp (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa has been approached to do a copyedit. --Rskp (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may be Dank was referring to the Reorganisation of the EEF subsection. I've shifted it back to the Sinai and Palestine Campaign where it started, before the edit war took off. --Rskp (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I lack the full skill set I would need to be comfortable with the final result, but I have a solution: assuming this passes GAN, please bring it to A-class. If people there are happy, then I'm happy, and I'll copyedit it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the current status of the copyedit? Wiki Cop ter Returns 19:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me? I won't copyedit this until it hits A-class and people there are happy with it. There's work that needs to be done at the A-class level; no opinion on what needs to be done for GAN. - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand Dank. There are no plans to submit this article at A-class level. Diannaa has declined to copyedit it saying that its too long for a GAR. [3] Is length a criteria? Should I approach GOCE? --Rskp (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 23:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passed, although the length of the article is a concern that you will have to get through in the future. Wiki Cop ter Returns 22:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I appreciate your interest and thank you for spending a considerable amount of time on this article. --Rskp (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]