Talk:Capture of Jenin/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 14:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll review this article shortly--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on, Tomobe03. --Rskp (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Checklinks reports no problems with external links found in the article (no action required)
• No disambiguation links found in the article (no action required)
• There are two duplicate links in the article, and they should be removed per WP:OVERLINK. Those are: Battle of Samakh and Capture of Tiberias.

Done. --Rskp (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Images are properly licenced and their captions are appropriate (no action required)
  • Aside from licences and caption style: What is the source for "Serial 7416/17" in the Albatros image?

The Australian War Memorial photo which is linked in the source information shows the serial number. --Rskp (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• The article editing history indicates stability (no action required)
• Prose referencing appears to be fine (no action required)
• Background section:
  • Is there a way to quantify "many of the British infantry and yeomanry cavalry regiments" in the background section, at least to give readers a sense of proportion of force redeployed? Whether they constitute say 90% of the force or 10% of the force makes a bit of difference.

Done. --Rskp (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Please wikilink ranks such as "Lieutenant General", "Major General" at their first occurrence.

Done. --Rskp (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Please wikilink "creeping barrage", "Battle of Megiddo", "Nablus", the "Jordan River" and "Amman"

Done. --Rskp (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Prelude section
  • 8 miles and 10 miles should be presented as words per WP:ORDINAL. You can use {{convert/spell }} template to achieve this (please note the space following "spell" needed before the first template pipe)

Done. --Rskp (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Advance to Lejjun subsection
  • Please wikilink "Lejjun", "Tulkarm", "Sharon plain" and "Plain of Esdraelon"
  • Capitalization of Plain of Sharon is inconsistent, should plain be capital or not?

Links provided and capitalizaation fixed. --Rskp (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Specify rank held by Otto Liman von Sanders at the first occurrence of the name per WP:SURNAME

Done. --Rskp (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Desert Mounted Corps objectives subsection
  • What is meant by "destroying or dominating German aircraft"? I'm not quite certain what does dominating part mean - suppression of airfield use (no/few German planes took off), air supremacy achieved through superior combat skills/overwhelming numbers of British craft (German planes took to the battle but were successfully engaged by the British), or something else. Please clarify.

Have checked the source which actually says "to destroy or drive off the German aeroplanes." --Rskp (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Battle section
  • "3 miles" and "1 mile" should be presented as words per WP:ORDINAL

Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• • At first I read .5 miles (0.80 km) as 5 miles, then realised that's a fraction. While nothing bars you from using this type of unit scale, don't you think a measurement in feet or yards would be more appropriate? Also, there's 1⁄2 mile (800 m) option for you to consider. This is not a dealbreaker though.

Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Which currency is ₤20,000 expressed in? If those are meant as pounds sterling (which I suspect might be the case), MOS:CURRENCY defines the symbol specifically as £ (having one horizontal bar instead of two). Please amend accordingly or clarify currency if those are not pounds sterling.

Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Unless "1 squadron" is meant as "1st squadron", i.e. squadron designation, it should be presented as "one squadron" per WP:ORDINAL

Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Aftermath section
  • According to MOS:LIFE, "north–eastwards" may be presented either as a single word or hyphenated, but not with an endash.

Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Who's Barrow in "Barrow's 4th Cavalry Division"?
  • Who's Macandrew in "Macandrew's 5th Cavalry Division"?

Cut commanders names and added links to both divisions. --Rskp (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Wikilink "Tiberias"

Done. --Rskp (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Notes
  • What is the purpose of note 1? There already is an article lancer with many illustrations. If you feel the lancer article is missing crucial info I'd move it there.

Note cut, info moved to Lancer article. --Rskp (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Why not amend "...by the historic southern Musmus Pass, to Lejjun..." to "...by the historic southern Musmus Pass (once used by armies led by Thothmes III and Vespasian), to Lejjun..." instead of note 2? I trust the info is interesting and will contribute to the prose better than the note.

Done. Thanks, that's a great improvement. --Rskp (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Note 3 is completely redundant, because it is already mentioned and linked in the prelude section.

Cut. --Rskp (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• • What is the purpose of note 4? I'd rather add Falls ref following Powles instead.

I've been accused of POV for not including enough German and Ottoman sources, so I put this in to preempt the criticism. Have cut the note and added the citation. --Rskp (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• • I feel that the note 5 would be better off incorporated into the prose as it explains the prose sentence preceding the note marker.

Done. --Rskp (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Ditto for note 6

Done. --Rskp (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Regarding note 7: Is it a generally accepted position that the unit entered Jenin on 20 September and is DiMarco in minority in this case? Please clarify if so. If, on the other hand, the positions on this are more or less evenly split, I'd include the info in the prose. Also, the note contains a mdy date format which need be brought in line with the rest of the article (dmy is used elsewhere)

Its only DiMarco so have edited the note and moved it. --Rskp (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• • I believe notes 8 and 9 will be better off incorporated into the prose as they are parts of the timeline really.

Done. --Rskp (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Ultimately, choice whether any one of the notes is incorporated into the prose is up to you, these are my suggestions - I don't believe GA review criteria bar them (except maybe notes 1 and 3 per WP:ALSO indirectly - that is not a "see also" section but you made the two notes virtually as a "see also" entries). Still, if you choose to keep any of them, I believe the citations used therein need be made consistent in style with the rest of the article per WP:CITEVAR. If you need help with those, ping me.

Thanks a lot. I've had a go at incorporating them, but would be glad if you had a look. --Rskp (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Is there any info on killed or wounded on either side? If not, specify "unknown" in the infobox instead of leaving the field completely blank.

No figures are given for this operation. The killed and wounded would have been incorporated into the general divisional figures for the period. --Rskp (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Where does the 8,107 figure of captured come from? It's not in the prose right now and need be added along with its sourcing if it is to be kept in the infobox.

No idea. Have changed it to 8,000 which is mentioned. --Rskp (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• In the result field of the infobox, currently there's "Australian Light Horse victory" which is fine by itself but as far as I can tell it is a norm to have "Australian victory" instead. No specific rule exists there, AFAICT, so this is no dealbreaker.

I've left it as is. --Rskp (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• The infobox states that the battle took place on 20 September 1918 but the timeline presented in the prose suggests 20-21 September 1918 instead, the same situation is in the lead. Now, I'm aware that Jenin itself was entered on 20 September, but it seems that the closely related events lasted till next day. I may be wrong on this - if sources say it happened on "20 September" and no other day, that's fine, but in that case the last paragraph of the "Battle" section need be moved to the "Aftermath" section.

Moved para to Aftermath. --Rskp (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Direct quotations: Please review direct quotations used in the prose (regardless how well sourced they are) and see if you can rephrase any of those in order to avoid accusations of excessive quoting where that is not necessary.
  • For instance, quotation "Concentration, surprise, and speed were key elements in the blitzkrieg warfare planned by Allenby." seems quite justifiable, but lacks attribution. I'd rather have According to Woodward, "Concentration, surprise, and speed were key elements in the blitzkrieg warfare planned by Allenby". The similar applies to "enormous amount of booty."

Done. --Rskp (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• • On the other hand, The troop had "immediately deployed, drew swords and charged right into the Turks, wounding several and taking the whole force" prisoner. while sourced properly leaves me wondering why is this presented as a direct quotation. Ditto in They arrived at 06:00 to find the "whole plain seem[ingly] covered with prisoners, motor cars, lorries, wagons, animals, and stores in an inextricable confusion."

Not sure what is required here though I've slightly changed them. --Rskp (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm having this problem with another article and am very unsure about close paraphrasing, like "prisoners, motor cars," etc. all of which I'd like to be able to incorporate somehow. I've had a look at WP:Quotefarm and the examples there, however, could you check the two "on the other hand" quotes to see if they are heading in the right direction, before I look at the remainder of the quotes in the article. --Rskp (talk) 06:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Those appear quite good to me right now. The point is that there should be no direct quotation present unless there is a clear purpose for it. For instance, a direct quote might be used to attribute specific words to specific people - in the first example specified before the "on the other hand" - that is Woodwards interpretation of what went on in Allenby's mind and it is presented in his own words. Similarly, I'd also prefer directly quoting "enourmous amount of booty" from a reliable source to reporting capture of very valuable materials because "enormous amount" is quite a subjective term - what's enormous to one need not necessarily be impressive to another. If the source reported a pound sterling figure, I'd report it indirectly. If it sticks to subjective valuation, I'd go with a direct quotation to avoid inadvertent misrepresentation.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Rskp (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Please take a look at the remaining direct quotations and see if any of them may be rephrased without harming the article or understanding of the topic. It's not necessary to remove all or nearly all of them, but to strike a good balance and avoid excessive use of direct quotations (even if the works are not copyrighted) per WP:QUOTEFARM.

Checked and edited. Thanks for your advice regarding these quotations. --Rskp (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice article overall. I enjoyed reading and reviewing it. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)