Talk:Battles of Fort Budapest/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria:

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Wilhelmina Will

talk

07:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content;

and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

This article checks against everything, though I must note that, while I took care of it as I read through the article, it could've stood to hold a few more internal links. Just a suggestion, for future nominations. Great article, overall! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the article is listed as a 'good article', I believe it actually fails several of the criteria for a "Good Article":

It is not 'neutral' nor does it have 'broad coverage'. The entire article is based on a single Egyptian source (Hammad). An Israeli source is mentioned in the aftermath on an incident long after the battle itself. This means only an Egyptian POV is presented since Hammad apparently never consulted Israeli sources. Moreover, Hammad seems to like the Sa'iqa very much, and the article reads more like an account of the Sa'iqa forces trying to siege the fort rather than the battle in the fort itself.

We therefor know very little about the Israeli side, like:

- How many defending Israeli soldiers were there, and how many causalities they suffered. (exact number is available)
- What was the state of the fort during the defence?
- Did Israeli reinforcements reach the fort, and in what numbers?

The article almost entirely ignores these questions, and when it does deign to relate anything about the Israeli side of the battle, the info is factually wrong. I'll get to the errors, but first I must note this is not a result of lacking Israeli sources. A simple search found a considerable amount of Israeli sources, albeit mostly not in English. Some sources in Hebrew:

A book by the fort commander ("A War Will Break Out at Six p.m.").[1]
Said commander's testimony in the Agranat Commission.[2]
A long article by (ret.) Major Siman Tov Shima'on Sagi.[3]

I'm sure much more exists that I missed.

This narrowness leads to considerable factual errors:

- The Israeli OOB is grossly wrong for both the attacks:

- - Ashkenazi did not command two tank platoons (two tank platoons == 8 tanks IIRC) during the first attack. He did manage to get two tanks[5], and commanded 4 artillery piece which went out of action the second day of the war. Two tank companies were sent to relieve the fort, met an Egyptian commando ambush and had to retreat (therefor not being 'reinforcements' since they never arrived and never were under his command)[3].
  - Ashkenazi was not the fort commander during the second attack, nor were the troops from the first attack there. The IDF managed to make contact during the 11th and relieved the fort's defenders. ([3]. [6] says 10th instead) [Naturally, the article does not mention this]. The defenders were replaced by a Nahal company. The totals in the box are wrong again, again by confusing the battle to relieve the fort and the battle in the fort itself. Moreover, Hammad seems to like to pull Israeli tank platoons from a hat. The formations trying to contact Budapest were Mechanized Infantry and Paratroopers per [3].

- The article describes the fort as "exceptional engineering preparations and a considerable amount of weaponry. The fort incorporated nine bunkers, and was surrounded by barbed wire and minefields to a depth of 600 metres (660 yd)". Ashkenazi's testimony in Agranat[2] (see p. 32 in the PDF and on) paints a very different picture than "exceptional engineering preparation". I'll translate a small part:

"Not-small parts of the outermost fence were eaten by the seawater, [the fence] collapsed, especially in the critical part of the north-eastern section, where in fact the Egyptian armour wanted to enter. The fence was 60cm tall. Two collapsed concertina wires on the floor, which a man could pass with simple steps... A gate - or something to block it with - did not exist... A mine field that was in that corner was washed away by the seawater..."
"entire sections did not have internal fences... (p. 33) the positions and ditches were in a very serious state... because the send leaked [from the bags]... In my estimate, 30 thousand sandbags might have allowed to control the bag issue, but the positions collapsed, esp. the heightened anti-air positions..." (later he mentions he got 250 bags).

[3] has a nice map, probably from Ashkenazi's book?

- I have not found Israeli source maintaining 20 Israeli tanks and APCs were destroyed in the second attack on the 15th. [3] and [4] say 3 Israeli APC were destroyed in the ambush.

In short, I can't understand how this article passed review in the first place. While the reviewer might not have been able to read Hebrew, the use of only a single source presented obvious issues. At the very least, there should have been some skepticism and a call to try to add something from an Israeli POV...

[1] http://www.mayerbooks.com/site/en/catalogue.php?q=ARCH&l=888&o=sprache&aod=desc (catalog in English)
[2] http://go.ynet.co.il/pic/news/eduyot/ashkenazi.pdf
[3] http://www.global-report.com/um/a11188-התותחנים-במעוז-בודפשט-במלחמת-יום-הכיפורים
[4] http://www.izkor.gov.il/HalalKorot.aspx?id=94056
[5] http://info.jpost.com/C003/Supplements/30YK/new.03.html (English)
[6] http://www.haaretz.com/general/soldiers-probe-a-national-trauma-1.107094 (English)

79.176.15.122 (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC) [Edited later to spell Agranat right: 79.176.15.122 (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)][reply]