Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Polygon Wood

Battle of Polygon Wood

I don't know where I'd like to take this article, but I'd appreciate any suggestions. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 19:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackyd101

A few pointers.

This battle did not happen in a vacumn and a reader should be able to come to it and broadly understand what is going on without reference to other articles. I am pretty knowledgeable about this period, and even I struggled to properly contextualise it. You have to have some form of background section explaining why this battle was necessary in the context of the Passchendaele campaign and the wider war as a whole, why it was fought at this location and what the attackers ambitions were. At the moment this is patchy and unclear.
More on the German side of things. The infobox particularly is pretty bare: don't we even know which units the attack was aimed at?
At the moment the battle describes things in broad sweeps: with five divisions attacking together there must have been more detailed battle plans than simply advancing. Likewise there should be more information on specific targets and defensive positions, and on the activity of the various attacking units: presumably some fared better than others?
You need a source for the feature of the Plummer battles comment. In any case, this really should be in another section, looking at the historiographical aspects of the battle.
No where does it explain what the consequences of the battle were: what effect did it have on the strategic situation within the battle of Passchendaele?

Just a few thoughts on how to expand this article, good luck.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert

Hi, not a bad start. These are my suggestions:

The article uses the term 'Australian Royal Flying Corps', please check this for accuracy. I've never heard it before, usually it is just Australian Flying Corps, I think;
endashs are used where you should just use normal hyphens, e.g. stretcher-bearers, not stretcher–bearers.
The images are creating a large amount of whitespace in the notes section, could they be re-arranged or put in a gallery?
The first paragraph of the Battle section is confusing, "Australian Fifth Divisions' 3rd and 59th Division" sounds like the 3rd and 59th Division was part of the 5th, but that can't be right, surely?
Per WP:MOS dates shouldn't be linked.
Date ranges should have endashes, and either spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes should be used where hyphens are used like parentheses, e.g. in the Aftermath section "all their objectives - woods, blockhouses and trenches - and suffered 1,717", the hyphens in that sentece should be either spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes.
The Battle and Aftermath sections need to be expanded to include more detail if possible.
The References section should be sorted alphabetically by author's surname.
There is some confusion of style in terms of divisional designations, in one instance the article spell's the numerical designation of a unit, and then later uses a number, for instance Fourth Division and 4th Division. Consistancy is the key. I think they should all use the number as that appears to be more common, although I admit that many sources from the time also have a lack of consistancy in this regard.

Anyway, that is it for the moment. Hope these help. Thanks for your contribution and good luck with future development of the article. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose

Yes, good start and useful selection of images. Jacky and Rupert have covered a fair bit, but some other things:

Following up on Rupert's initial comment, it must be either Australian Flying Corps or Royal Flying Corps but not a mixture (that said, and just to confuse, AFC squadrons carried RFC numbers as well until 1918, e.g. No. 1 Squadron AFC was No. 67 Squadron RFC to the British, but just check your source and hopefully it will be clear).
Following up on one of Jacky's comments, can we at least determine the general makeup of German forces, and the number of German casualties, for the infobox?
The intro suggests that until Plumer started his 'bite and hold' tactics, the general rule of attack had been major frontal assaults, but the latter assertion isn't really extrapolated and cited in the main body of the article.
Before the Great War, Polygon Wood was by the Belgian Army... It was what by the Belgian Army - owned, utilised, etc?
Unless the Aftermath and Memorial sections were to be expanded I think I'd combine them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham, B.S.

Just a few comments:

Dates should be delinked, and preferably presented in the Australian/British format of day month year.
Endashes are required in date ranges used in the article and page ranges used in citations.
I would recommend mentioning the Victoria Cross recipients of Polygon Wood in the "Aftermath" section.
I noticed that you have included Bean's volume of the Australian Official History on Ploygon Wood in this. Just to note, the Australian War Memorial website contains digital copies of the Official Histories online here.
Same with photos. The Australian War Memorial Internet Explorer&bos=Win32 online collections include PD photographs relating to Polygon Wood, so there is no point uploading images under fair use when free ones are available. :)
Images require alt text.
I would recommend you consult some German sources for their perspective on the battle.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]