Jump to content

Talk:First Battle of Dernancourt/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 03:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this for GA over the next few days. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Initial suggestions: G'day, nice work. I have a few suggestions, below: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the Background section, I wonder if a little more context is necessary... for instance, perhaps the general war situation could be clarified a bit more, explaining what the German Spring Offensive was. It probably could be done in one to two sentences, so it wouldn't unbalance the article, IMO;
  • in the infobox, is "decisive" how the sources describe this result? If not, it is probably best just to say "Allied victory"
  •  Done probably an overstatement.
  • Dernancourt is overlinked in the Background section
  •  Done
  • in the Background, "the remaining two brigades of the 4th Division...": perhaps add the designations here. For example, " the remaining two brigades of the 4th Division – the 12th ad 13th – ..."
  •  Done
  • in the Background, perhaps the dispositions of the 13th Brigade could also be mentioned
  •  Done
  •  Done
  • "Albert-Amiens road": should have an endash
  •  Done
  •  Done
  • should a link to this article (and any others) be added to the {{Campaignbox Spring Offensive (World War I)}} template? Doing so might help improve the accessability of the article, but I don't know if there has been a decision to only include certain battles on that template, or not
  • Not sure about that, it is pretty high level. Maybe 2nd Dernancourt would qualify, given its significance, but it is only a new campaignbox and I too am unclear about its intent.
  • are there any images that might be added to the infobox? This would help improve the visual appeal of the article (but it isn't a GA requirement)
  • I'm working on it, the AWM doesn't have many pics of Dernancourt (surprisingly), maybe a location map, but probably won't get it done for this review.
  • "File:AWM A01059 Aerial view of the Dernancourt battlefield.jpg": on the image description page it says date unknown, but the AWM appears to provide a date of 30 May 1918
  •  Done
  • "S.O.S. line" might need clarification
  •  Done Added a note and reference explaining what they were.
  • I'd suggest maybe making "Allied dispositions" and "German plan of attack" third level headers underneath a "Prelude" second-level header (not really required, though)
  • Good suggestion  Done
  • "By this time, the troops of the 12th Brigade had been "moving, marching and fighting for three days and three nights almost without sleep", and were in...": the quote here might need in line attribution
  • "along the railway line were glaringly obvious": I'm not sure this sentence is necessary, but if you think so I'd suggest potentially attributing the opinion or rewording it slightly as it seems close to editorialising
  • I've attributed it to Deayton, and dropped the "glaringly". It's line ball, and he is pretty disparaging, talking about "even more apparent" shortcomings.
  • Military Operations France and Belgium, 1918: March–April, Continuation of the German Offensives by Edmonds, Davies and Maxwell-Hyslop might have some more information that might be useful for this article. Do you know if you have access to it? If not, Keith-264 might be able to help
  • A good idea, my state library has a copy. Probably have a look before an ACR nom.

Criteria

  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:
I am happy that this article meets the GA criteria above, noting that there are a couple of minor issues raised that can be dealt with at or before a subsequent ACR. Beyond this, thanks for your efforts. Are you planning on writing the Second Dernancourt and Morlancourt articles? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rupert, I'm planning to do 2nd Dernancourt soonish, which is much bigger and more complex, not sure about Morlancourt though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great to hear. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_Battle_of_Dernancourt/GA1&oldid=805094267"