Talk:Second Battle of Passchendaele/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I have elected to review this article against the Good article criteria, and should have my initial comments posted up within the next few hours. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have now completed reviewing this article against the criteria, and am placing it on hold pending some concerns outlined below. Overall, however, this is a very good article and is extremely close to Good article status. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   An endash (–) is required between date ranges used in the article and page ranges used in citations. I think I have done all of them for this article, but please remember for future reference.

1. "Two army commanders told Haig that they favored ending the campaign" - it should be clarified which two commanders.

   Will check the British Official History to see if it names the two.

   I am unable, at present time, to get access to a copy of the BOH for Passchendaele. Therefore unable to clarify which generals favored ending the campaign. Would you like me to remove this statement until I can find out? Labattblueboy (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

   No, I think the sentence should remain as it does hold quite a bit of importaince. If you are unable to obtain the identities of the two generals at this time, then that's okay; it won't stop this article from promotion to GA. However, if you are able to find out who they were some time in the future, it would be good if it was included. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

1. "The Battle of Poelcappelle and First Battle of Passchendaele both failed to achieve their objectives and resulted in significant casualties with virtually no strategic gain, with the possible exception of providing a better starting line for the subsequent attack on Passchendaele" - this sentence is a tad long winded and could do with some breaking up.

   broken up  Done

1. "A number of problems were found with artillery and positions taken over from the Australians." - this sentence is a little confusing and could do with some clarification. Waht was wrong with the artillery? What was the problem with the Australians positions?

   A bit of rewritting has been completed but was pretty clear already. 1. Not all artillery could be found. 2. Because the provost prevented gun movements on the roads, the large number of damaged artillery had gone unrepaired 3. The artillery was grouped into two positions making for easy German counter-battery targets. Done

1. "Ten field companies, seven tunnelling companies, four army troop companies assisted by two infantry and seven pioneer battalions were put to work setting up artillery battery positions and repairing or extending existing plank roads." - this sentence could also use some clarification, and possibly breaking up.

   cut length down.  Done

1. "The second stage was intended to capture the position not captured during the previous stage and gain a base for the final assault on Passchendaele." - what position?

   re-written to: The second stage was intended to capture the positions the Canadian Corps had failed to capture during the previous stage and gain a base for the final assault on Passchendaele. Done

1. Both "counterattack" and "counter-attack" are used. For consistancy, please use only one of the varients throughout.

   Standardized with "counterattack". Done

1. "To re-supply front line units supply trains, consisting of 250 pack animals per infantry brigade, were utilized to forward supplies." - this sentence is confusing and could do with a re-write.

   re-written as: In an effort to resupply front line units hundreds of pack animals were utilized to bring supplies forward. Done

1. "Gun ammunition also had to be brought forward by pack transport from the wagon lines west of Ypres to the main supply dumps and thence to the battery positions." - this sentence could do with breaking up as it is too long winded.

   deleted. combined gun ammunition into previous sentence. Done

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The are a few areas where additional citations are required, which I have marked with a "citation needed" tag. Done

1. Cites #19 and #22 should be combined.

   The cited webpages are both from the CWGC but are in fact different content. One for the 30 Oct, I believe, and the other for 6 Nov.

   After going into them (which I should have done in the first place), I can see that they present different content. However, they need to be renamed at least slightly so they can be distinguished from each other. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

   I have renamed to reflect differences in content. Done Labattblueboy (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

1. The statistics in the infobox require citations.

   casualty figures now cited. Done

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Well, any and all of my concerns have now been addressed and I am satisified that this article meets the GA criteria, so I will be promoting it as such. Congratulations and well done! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)