Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Messines (1917)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle of Messines

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

I made many small changes to it before altering my laptop settings and seeing that it already had a GA rating. I did a much more detailed revision to consolidate the small changes and add material and sources, similar to those of the other Passchendaele pages. All are now B-class except this one and 2nd Passchendaele. I want to work on bringing all of them up to A-class or GA next and then use the experience to branch out into article assessing. A peer review of the page will give me a model to use on the rest and allow readers to benefit from a better article.

Thanks, Keith-264 (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: this article is progressing quite well, IMO. Good work. I have a few minor nitpicks (mainly on style):
    • inconsistent caps: "Western front of the First World War" (in the lead) v. "Western Front of the First World War" (in the infobox); DONE.
    • inconsistent presentation: " 80m (264 feet)" v "50 metres (160 ft); DONE.
    • dashes and spaces: "11 May–6 June" probably should be "11 May – 6 June" (there are other examples of similar constructions);
      • Oh dear... it will take a lot of time to put spaces in. Is there no discretion?
    • in the Footnotes, some of your page ranges uses endashes, but others don't.
    • in the Footnotes, the page ranges might be better presented as "pp." rather than singular "p."; DONE.
    • I suggest moving a couple of the images, or adding a couple more, to break up the text a little. For instance in the "British offensive preparations" seciton, the image "File: Lone Tree Crater 2009.jpg" could be moved down a little to break up the text a little;
  • Labatt's been working on maps so I'll get in touch. (I'm inclined to put maps and pictures on the right hand side) I'll shift the pictures a bit and see what you think.DONE.Keith-264 (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • at ACR or FAC, there might possibly be a question raised about the source for "File:Battle of Messines - planning map (cropped).jpg". Currently the source is the generic "www.awm.gov.au", but at ACR or FAC, they will probably want a direct link (if one exists), or a book with a page number;
      • Sadly I'm a beginner with uploads so I can't do that. (I had a try with some pictures from The Dover Patrol for Operation Hush but reached an impasse with the aficionados.)
    • "File:Battle of Messines - Map.jpg": probably has a similar issue, in that its listed source is the generic "www.dean.usma.edu";
    • in the References, are there ISBNs or OCLC numbers that could be added for the Boraston, Brown, Bulow, Cleland, Simpson and Stewart works?
      • Some of the books don't have ISBNs but I'll have another look. What is an OCLC number?
        • Similar to an ISBN. Not all works have ISBNs (I think those before 1965 don't - not exactly sure of this point). So if you can't find an ISBN, it can help a researcher if you include an OCLC number. They can be found at www.worldcat.org. I've added a few in for you. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the External links, for consistency "The Plugstreet Archaeology Project" link might be better presented by embedding the link as the others have been.
      • I have tried to leave previous work on the page and fit additions round it, so quite a lot was there before I got stuck in. I haven't encountered some of the technical aspects of previous work, so don't always know how but I'll have a try. TRIED & Failed.Keith-264 (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries, I've made the tweak myself. In doing so, though I notice that some of the items in the External links section are actually internal links. E.g. they should go in a See also section, but only if they aren't already linked in the article. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regards back, hope you feel better.Keith-264 (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ISBNs, I can add some ISBNs from later editions and reprints of at least some ot the volumes but they won't be from the copies I've used. Will an ISBN from a reprint or facsimile edition do?Keith-264 (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I'd suggest adding the OCLCs. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Footnotes, I found a couple of the links didn't work "Edmonds 1927, p. 353" (should this be Edmonds 1948?) and "Portal Belgium.be 2012".

Comments. - Dank (push to talk) "The Battle of Messines took place from 7–14 June 1917, on the Western Front during the First World War. The British Second Army under the command of General Herbert Plumer launched an offensive ...": I'd go with: The Battle of Messines (7–14 June 1917) was a First World War offensive launched by the British Second Army under the command of General Herbert Plumer ..."

  • "forced German Army": forced the German army
  • "running north about the villages": north of the villages
  • "Caprture": Capture
  • "the French army, which was suffering a collapse in morale and many mutinous outbreaks and position British troops as the prelude to a larger assault in the Ypres Salient.": "position" is too far from "would", and might be read as a noun.
  • "many mutinous outbreaks": outbreaks of mutiny - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll sort them out. Trouble with "north of the villages" is that they're on the ridge. I'll alter it to Plugstreet–Messines–Wytschaete–Mt. Sorrel.Keith-264 (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added three paragraphs from Farndale to the text, can put them in a note if preferred.Keith-264 (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Oz, just saw your recent edits. In the books the titles have the colon printed after a space. Is it wrong copy this? Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 08:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a template page for weights and measures converters? I tried {{convert|144000|tons|tonnes}} etc but no luck. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, on the first point with the colons: IMO colons are usually presented without a space in front of them. That's just my experience, but I'm a professional soldier, not a professional writer, so I'm not an expert (interestingly enough, though, the Defence writing guide on my desk agrees with me on this point and it is usually fairly much in tune with the WP:MOS). You may of course disagree its (the Defence writing manual) guidance as it certainly holds no weight here. If you feel it is necessary, I'm not wedded to it and you are of course welcome to change it back. On the second point, "contact, wait out". I'll have a hunt around and get back to you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does this do the trick: {{convert|144000|t|MT}}? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I wasn't sure about Wiki usage for book titles when I did the book references so copied what I saw in the books. If it's wiki to modernise obsolete punctuation I'll follow the wiki system. I'm hoping that one of the things I'll get from the peer review is a better idea of the writing conventions (like the A – B or A–B question) so I won't have to plough through the other pages sorting out mistakes. Looking things up for myself hasn't worked well, the only Wiki advice pages that I've found helpful, are the ones recommended by more experienced contributors like thee.Keith-264 (talk) 10:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{{convert|144000|t|MT}} doesn't seem to work. I used a calculator instead.Keith-264 (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Must we have anachronistic national symbols for Dominion contingents? If we must then shouldn't we have the same for Bavarian, Wurttemburg, Saxon and Prussian etc forces?Keith-264 (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keith, while I can see arguments for an against both sides, I think you would save yourself a lot of drama by putting them all in there. For whatever reason, the flag icons draw a lot of drive by attention, when in reality they add almost nothing to the quality of the article. The interesting thing (from an Australian point of view), as that our soldiers have flown both the Australian and Union flag (at different times) while fighting, right up to and including during the Second World War. A lot of Australians don't know this, though, so if you remove them you will probably get POV editors adding them back in. For an example of both during the Second World War, view these articles: Battle of Sattelberg and Battle of Wareo (these actually occured during the same campaign). As such, I'd probably suggest a path of least resistance. It's your call, though, and personally I don't mind either way. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me to be historically illiterate, pre-Statute of Westminster, 1931; I'm buggered if I'll go to the trouble though, drive-by or no. ;O). Are there any German aficionados who can help?Keith-264 (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that I've been writing Anzac as in the OH and not ANZAC, is this a mistake?Keith-264 (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another can of worms, I'm afraid, Keith. There have been some spectacular arguments about this in the past. I personally don't think it matters which one you use. If you have chosen one style because that is what is used by the main source, then that seems a good enough reason for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've been wriggling on the hook over A – B rather than A–B because I'll have to re-do them on every page but If that's what it takes....;O)Keith-264 (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis done; I may have overdone the nowraps though.Keith-264 (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I fear that I have not explained the issue with the dashes very well. That issue had been fixed (I did it earlier). What I was trying to say was that this is correct "1–2 June", but that this isn't correct "16 April–9 May 1917". What has happened now is that we now have "1 – 2 June" (which is not correct), but we also have "16 April – 9 May 1917" (which is correct). Apologies for not explaining this more clearly. At the end of the day, it is a really minor thing, though. I will go through and try to fix this for you if you want (please let me know). There is one issue, though, outstanding that I'm not sure how to fix. It is the issue with the the footnotes "Edmonds 1927, p. 353" and "Portal Belgium.be 2012". When I click on them, they don't seem to link to anything. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
B

Oh **!"£%^s. I thought that the – must have gaps so I've put them in on all the other pages too. PS what's the difference between ndash and nowrap?Keith-264 (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Edmonds 1927 was from the paragraphs I parachuted in from the main page. I forgot to do the same for the references attached.Keith-264 (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portal of Belgium was an attempt to find a source for the language comments (I don't have a literary reference) but again, I forgot to do the reference.Keith-264 (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the gaps out of the 1–10 June dates that I put in.Keith-264 (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched through wiki and still can't find anything like a relief map of the ridge or the Gheluvelt plateau. Any ideas?Keith-264 (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look around and couldn't find anything free. Sorry. Maybe, if you post a request on WP:Graphic Lab for someone to make one, you might get lucky. Having said that, in the past I've not had any success when I asked there for maps to be created. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://archive.org/details/struggleinflande00gibb there are some maps in here from 1919 which I can try to upload. Will there be any copyright complications?Keith-264 (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListFiles&limit=50&user=Keith-264 Done this, any good?Keith-264 (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I think those licences are okay, but I'm not an image expert. With the maps, though, I'd probably suggest cropping them to remove the text around them. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the red lined one might be best but I have exhausted my computer mojo to get as far as uploading them. I'll have to leave the rest to someone who knows what to do. Having sorted out the – problem, I'm having second thoughts because I've spaced all of them, 1914 – 1918 rather than 1914–1918 for example.Will this matter? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at cropping the maps on Commons. I think what I did was okay. Regarding the dashes, it seems a minor issue, but someone might take issue with it (it really just depends upon who is reviewing). AustralianRupert (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We bow in awe of your Wiki-fu. Thanks for doing the cropping I'm trying them out now.Keith-264 (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos, do you know how to get rid of the "cite error" tag here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Hush#Notes I've shifted templates around but to no avail. As usual the advice page is useless.Keith-264 (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Battle_of_Messines_(1917)/archive1&oldid=521115102"