Talk:Battle of Simba Hills/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 06:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
This article is in good shape. I have a few comments:
- Lead
- successfully forcing them to retreat is a bit unnecessary, I would trim "successfully"
- Done.
- I would change the piping of Battle of Masaka to include Masaka, same in the body
- Done.
- Body
- 1800→1,800
- Fixed.
- very odd that placing the artillery behind Kikanda Hill is considered poor use of ground. Generally, artillery is placed in dead ground out of line of sight of the enemy and fires indirectly, controlled by observers on high ground who provide directions via radio. This makes me wary of any military conclusions drawn by the source.
- I'm not as well versed in tactics, but I also did not think it all that condemnable for the Ugandans to place their artillery out of the line of sight, even if it diminished their range. Though I think most could agree that the failure of them to establish significant entrenchments on the hills was a major strategic oversight. Avirgan and Honey were journalists first and foremost, and not military historians. It seems most of their other work dealt with more political matters than military ones. It's quite possible they were simply reflecting the thoughts of the Tanzanian soldiers who captured the hills; perhaps the TPDF thought it made more sense to place artillery atop a hill for the range than hiding it on the far side. Should I trim the analysis?
- I would trim the bit about the artillery, as it isn't consistent with standard artillery operating procedures. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker67: Revised into two sentences: Despite holding the high ground, Ugandan commanders apparently did not know how to use their positions to their advantage; only a single trench was present on Nsambya Hill. The Ugandans placed their artillery behind Kikanda Hill.
- Works for me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker67: Revised into two sentences: Despite holding the high ground, Ugandan commanders apparently did not know how to use their positions to their advantage; only a single trench was present on Nsambya Hill. The Ugandans placed their artillery behind Kikanda Hill.
- I would trim the bit about the artillery, as it isn't consistent with standard artillery operating procedures. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not as well versed in tactics, but I also did not think it all that condemnable for the Ugandans to place their artillery out of the line of sight, even if it diminished their range. Though I think most could agree that the failure of them to establish significant entrenchments on the hills was a major strategic oversight. Avirgan and Honey were journalists first and foremost, and not military historians. It seems most of their other work dealt with more political matters than military ones. It's quite possible they were simply reflecting the thoughts of the Tanzanian soldiers who captured the hills; perhaps the TPDF thought it made more sense to place artillery atop a hill for the range than hiding it on the far side. Should I trim the analysis?
- trial→trail
- Fixed.
- Many heavy weapons were left behind in Minziro? Due to the state of the trail?
- Correct, slightly revised.
- is there a link for Uganda Army Air Force and Tanzanian Air Wing?
- Linked.
- MANPAD in full at first mention
- Done.
- missile launchers? what are we talking about here, MBRLs or something else?
- Mzirai does not specify, but they were almost certainly Katyusha rockets. The TPDF used these throughout the war to good effect, and the Ugandans nicknamed them "Saba Saba".
Placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker67: I have addressed your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by an acceptably licensed image with an appropriate caption. Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)