Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Bardia/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 19:38, 16 December 2009 [1].

Battle of Bardia

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because... although it is very recent, I think that it is of high quality. The battle is a significant one which has received little attention until recently. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Excellent, although could you mention how hot and how cold it got in the Libyan Desert? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 09:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

--an odd name 10:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: 1c fine. 2c fine. Moved commentary to talk Fifelfoo (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support
"assisted by air and naval gunfire" -> "assisted by air support..."
  • Done.
"This was compounded by qualitative problems with ammunition." Clumsy phrasing. That paragraph could do with a rebuild.
"But new factories were required to produce the latest equipment like 3 inch mortars, 25 pounders and motor vehicles, and War Cabinet approval was slow in coming." Please don't start start sentences with But... and take a look at that paragraph as well. For example, "The result was that when war came, the Army's equipment was largely of World War I vintage and obsolescent and its factories were capable only of producing small arms." is clumsy.
  • Done.
"As it moved into position around Bardia, the 6th Division was still experiencing shortages." I would like to see "As it moved into position around Bardia on [date],..."
  • Done
"This, the other teams heard and followed suit.[54]" should be "This, the other teams heard, and followed suit.[54]" The idiom may be hard for non-Commonwealth readers to follow, but I love that sentence.
  • Done.
Please fix typo in "The Italians defenders were cleared with grenades."
  • Done
Ditto " He sent a platoon around the flank to silent cut the wire on the western side,..."
  • Done
Ditto "Capturing the two posts cost one Australian was killed and seven wounded."
  • Done
And "The others had been hit by shells, imobilised by mines, or had simply broken down.[80]"
  • Done.
"...and the intended two company attack had to [be] carried out by just one"
  • Done
"Within the 6th Division, there was were recriminations over what was seen as favouritism by Berryman towards Robertson,". What is the relevance of ", and the 19th Infantry Brigade," in that sentence? Difficult to fathom, please rewrite.
  • Done
"In many ways the 6th Division was fortunate to have drawn the a "set piece" type of battle that most suited its Great War based doctrine and training" This paragraph appears internally inconsistent. They were lucky, or they weren't.
  • Done
Best concluding sentence of a battle article I have read on WP.
Overall:
Great maps. It may make even better use of that resource to cut out sections of "Bardia map.jpg" to highlight aspects of the description close to the relevant text.
Meets 1a, 1d, 3 and 4. Good job. Dhatfield (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found it rather odd that the lead does not mention what year this event took place. Also, it doesn't mention that Bardia is in Libya (not common knowledge I suspect). Further, only by using deductive reasoning would I be able to figure out that the battle only lasted three days. Now it is true that all of this information is in the infobox, and I'm not familiar with the format of MilHist articles, but shouldn't basic stuff like this be in the first few sentences of the lead? Sasata (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The lead should stand by itself, without recourse to the Infobox, the article or the links. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:Image issues resolved

  • As I understand the tagging, for File:Bardia map.jpg to be in the public domain, Hugh Groser would have to have died before 1955. Do we have any indication that that is the case?
    • No, it is in the public domain because it was a work commissioned by the Australian government before 1955. I've switched the copyright notice to {{PD-AustraliaGov}}. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, it wasn't hitherto clear that it was a government work. Very good.
  • File:Matilda Compass.jpg and File:CompassPrisoners.jpg are indicated as being both under crown copyright and in the public domain; these characterizations are mutually exclusive.
  • The Australian War Memorial images are all tagged as having been taken in Australia, when they obviously were not. They all still appear to be subject to Australian copyright law, and therefore in the public domain in Australia (and in the US, by virtue of having been in the public domain in Australia by the date of restoration), but they really shouldn't be tagged as having been taken in Australia, because it looks silly. Steve Smith (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct. It probably should say "...or by an Australian" But it is the template. A discussion and consensus is required to change it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Huh. Somebody less lazy than I am should initiate that discussion (though a preferable wording would be "first published in Australia or, for unpublished works, created by an Australian). In any event, I'm not going to hold up an FAC here on the basis of a poor choice of words on a Commons template. Steve Smith (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I read this article twice and both times I became a bit confused about what was precisely occuring and slightly bogged down. I think there are three reasons for this:

  • 1) At times, the article becomes overly detailed, obscuring the general plan of the battle. For example, in the "Planning and preparation" section, it was hard to understand why so much detail was given on the types of guns which were used in the battle. Either the details need to be better placed in context or some of them need to be deleted.
    • The former is required. The point is that the usual rule of thumb for winning a battle is to show up with a bigger army. Bergonzoli did that and lost. So an explanation is required. Without the technical details, that could become "Australians are better fighters than Italians." Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said, you either need to place the details in a context that explains why they are relevant or you need to delete them. It sounds like you are leaning towards the first solution. Awadewit (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2) Because the article is so concentrated on the details, I started to lose the thread of the battle and sometimes even forgot which side was which. I think the article needs to take a wider view of the battle more often to remind readers of what is going on. Here are two places where I was lost:
  • The 2/3rd Infantry Battalion were now assailed by half a dozen M13/40 tanks who freed a group of 500 prisoners. - I was confused at this point - which prisoners were these?
  • Major H. Wrigley's 2/5th Infantry Battalion of Brigadier Stanley Savige's 17th Infantry Brigade, reinforced by two companies of Lieutenant Colonel T. G. Walker's 2/7th Infantry Battalion, now took over the advance. - I was no longer sure which Battalions were on which side and was guessing by name ("that sounds British").
  • 3) I didn't really get a good sense of the overarching idea of the battle - it just seemed like a lot of little post battles. Reminding the reader of the goals of the battle, starting with an overview and returning to it, would help.
  • Prose issues:

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • Comments on refs
  • All OK except minor quibbles, as follows:
  • Could use named refs for: Long 1952, p. 155; Playfair 1954, p. 283; Playfair 1954, p. 287.
  • AWB catches them occasionally but not always; it's a very good idea to run AWB over a nom before nomming it. No, after using AWB, I just copy/paste the whole mess to a text file (to rmv formatting) and from there to MSWord, then I put them into a table and sort the table. A bit time-consuming, but usually works. • Ling.Nut 02:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Ling.Nut 09:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments

• Ling.Nut 08:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per 1a and 1b. The over-long section on this battle in the Operation Compass article seems to bring the info together in a more pellucid (love that word) manner. I just skimmed over it a bit; it even seems to have facts that the main article doesn't (e.g., "The Italians put in a last-ditch heavy regimental-sized counterattack in the southern sector"). The two accounts need to be carefully reconciled. The clarity of the Operation Compass section should be duplicated herein (love that word too). No major facts should be omitted in this article. Moreover, the subsection of Operation Compass should probably be greatly reduced, IMO. • Ling.Nut 11:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that section of the Operation Compass article contains a number of errors. Originally I was trying to fix it by footnoting it but then decided in view of its overly-large size to create a separate article on the Battle of Bardia and then to reduce the section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not that the other article is under review; it's that that one is easier to understand. Moreover, it contained info not in this one. If that other info is simply wrong, then (and I hope this doesn't sound like I'm speaking in a sharp tone or ordering you around; I'm making a philosophical observation) you certainly should remove it at some time or other – to help prevent Wikipedia from disseminating false info... back to the discussion at hand, however: I think the problem with this article is that it has a number of unstated conclusions or assumptions. As Awadewit said, there are many facts, and few passages to guide the reader into an understanding of the larger picture. For example, ""Germans cannot possibly keep out of Africa now." Is that supposed to be good or bad, from the Allies POV? Did the Allies want German forces in Africa, perhaps to force the latter to open up multiple fronts and expend their resources? And: "In turn this would lead to German intervention in the fighting in North Africa, changing the nature of the war in that theatre." "Changing the nature of the war" seems to be an overly vague understatement. And: "Hardy Wild-Eyed Aussies Called World's Finest Troops" You yourself made the point that the Aussies were outnumbered but still prevailed... but... I must have missed the part where this point was made clear in the article... and what else contributed to the Italian defeat: how much was due to their crappy equipment, or their untrained troops, or low morale and poor health, or tactical errors (if any)? What were the deciding factors? Aside from simply fighting well, did the Aussies make any particularly effective tactical moves, or particularly wise decisions? All or at least most of this should be in the article and should be summarized in the WP:LEDE. I sorta think you should take command of all this info (pun intended) and marshal it into a shape/system that guides the reader into understanding the big issues. • Ling.Nut 05:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: very well done in my opinion. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Bardia/archive1&oldid=1138455504"