Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Operation Brevity

Operation Brevity

I've listed this article for peer review because I have added to it quite a bit, expanding practically everything (only section I need to add stuff to now, is the last one on the German counterattack) and I would like to get some feedback before I try bump it up the quality ladder. I do know my grammar can be poor at times, but I’ve checked it over a few times and it seems fine to me – although this is also one of the areas I am hoping any reviewers would be able to especially scrutinise (and let me know because ill never find them lol).--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enigma strikes back

well not really :)

Am glad of the mangaling of my edits :) That is my main problem at the moment and i fear somewhat will be a major problem once i start my uni studies is that my grammar, on the whole, sucks!

I've struck through two of the points above as they have now been worked though. I would have struck through the section headers but am still not too sure if what is there now, is sufficient.

As for the point regarding Rommels epiphany on the importance of Halfaya Pass, i will have to reread his memoirs and the information in Jentz book and will get back to that one soon.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oberiko, i have just re read your remaining point - Rommel could not fortify Halfaya Pass following Brevity as it was still in his pocession. He did so after Skoprian, which am going to start a new article on. I will however mention in the aftermath section his realisation on how important the pass was.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the pass though, is it? If you read Operation_Battleaxe#Axis_preparation you'll see that Rommel fortified other positions as well, and this is still lacking from the Brevity article. Presumably this can be redressed by simply lifting the relevant statement, which is sourced, from the Battleaxe article? --FactotEm (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, i agree it should be noted and lifted from the article but only in relation to the ridge and other point - not Halfaya Pass. The entire statement from the Battleaxe article cna be dropped in the Skorpion one though.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oberiko

A few points.

* Try to use plain language. What you have looks alright at a glance, but I would imagine that words like "whilst" are not used in typical conversation by most our readers.

AFAIK, one of the most important results of Brevity was that it pointed out to Rommel the weaknesses in his front-line. It was because of this that he heavily fortified his positions, which in turn led to the severe mauling the Commonwealth took during Battleaxe.

* I would recommend changing the names of the battle sub-headings to reflect what was actually occurring rather then the date/time it took place. * I don't know what WP policy on footnotes is, but I think I'd avoid having multiple references within one <ref> tag, probably better to make several separate ones.

Quite good overall though, a drastic improvement over the last time I was at this page. Oberiko (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factotem

Oops. Displaying my ignorance of the MilHist peer review process here by completely missing this page! I've mangled a lot of Enigma's efforts with a couple of days worth of copyedits, but hopefully that has improved the prose. Ain't nothing wrong with "whilst" in English usage, but a moot point as every instance has now been changed to "while" as per the original editor's usage. --FactotEm (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the section headings/organisation, how about the following...?

Rename "Opening moves" to "British advance"
Eliminate the "Afternoon fighting" section, incorporating the 1st and 3rd paras which detail British actions into the "British advance" section, and incorporating the 2nd para which details German actions into the existing "German reactions" section
Rename "16 May" to "British withdrawal" --FactotEm (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me, ill rename the two sections. However for now i will not remove the afternoon section as it will require some bits and bobs to be rewrote and am not up for it at the moment. If anyone else wants to, go ahead! :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. How's that looking now for everyone? --FactotEm (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dhatfield

Checked grammar & style. Generally good. As far as I can tell, the map you provide shows Rommel's offensive, not the Allied counter-attacks. That would require a much smaller scale.

A few other general comments:

Add flow - I struggled to get a sense of the flow of the battle through the attacks and counterattacks. The best way to do this is with a notated map. You can use Inkscape to do this quite easily. You will probably need a better map of the immediate area in svg or pdf format. As second prize, a timeline or even a summary list of major actions on each front would clarify the flow somewhat. Is there a MilHist convention on this? I'm not a battles expert, I generally stick to tech.

Am at work so i cant download this programme just yet, does one load a map into the programme and then use the programme to put placenames/lines of advance etc on it?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It is best if the image is in a Scaleable Vector Graphics format. A couple of arrows, a few X's and some text should do nicely.

You may want to post a request at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve and request a raster to vector conversion of your map, then label it. Alternatively, take a look at the historical map tutorial. Dhatfield (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add scope - sometimes you refer to Coast, Central and Desert forces, sometimes to actions at a place with no indication of who was fighting there other than a regiment name. To link up a place-name combination with a force is making your reader work hard.

In the plans section, these three units are mentioned and what battalions/armoured units made them up is detailed. Following this, when place names are mentioned it is only (i think) in conjection with the battalion/armoured unit names. Could you give me an example of where it is confusing?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is all there in detail and for that you are to be commended, but detail is very difficult to read, especially when one is expected to skip between sections to get the picture. Example:In 'British Advance', a Company (A Company?) of 2nd Scots Guards advanced towards the Sollum barracks (paragraph 4). G Company of the 2nd Scots Guards is listed as the third element of a group heading to Halfaya Pass in paragraph 2. From Plans, I can infer that the 'Halfaya Pass' group is the 22nd Guards Brigade Group (paragraph 3). Then I must look in line 4 of paragraph 2 of Plans to discover (in brackets) that 2nd Scots Guards is part of 22nd Guards Brigade Group. Now I know that 2nd Scots Guards is part of the group tasked with taking the Halfaya Pass (also known as the central group). The Plan says that they were going to swing north to Sollum after taking Fort Capuzzo. What are they doing at Sollum? How on earth did they get there? Oh, I can see on the map that Sollum and the Sollum Barracks are on different sides of the Halfaya Pass. The details are still fuzzy in my mind but it seems to make sense, and I've spent a lot more time trying to figure it out than the average reader. Dhatfield (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the main author of this article but have done some extensive copyediting, which may have generated some of this confusion. A map will certainly help, but can this also be resolved simply by organising the "British advance" section better; either by merging the narrative for each battle group (coast, centre, desert) into a single paragraph for that battle group, or by introducing section headers for the actions of each battle group? Also, some points that may well be adding to the confusion...

The plan actually says that 2nd Scots Guards were to swing north towards Sollum, not actually to Sollum, two different beasts.
Although the above refers to the town, when it is covered in the Battle section, it is reported as an advance towards Sollum Barracks. Further, the objective is reported ambiguously, leaving the impression that it is the barracks that are being fought for by the (non-specific) Scots Guards company. The fact that this section ends with the statement that following the action "...the advance continued" leads me to suspect that the action was fought for some intermediary position, and not Sollum (town or barracks) itself.
The plans section reports that it was actually the Coast Group, not the centre group of which the Scots Guards are a part, that was tasked with taking Sollum Barracks. --FactotEm (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Company the Scots Guards sent to the capture the barracks is called somelike "left force". Looking through an article the other day, it mentioned that companies in some guards battalions were labled as such instead of being given a letter. I ommited the name they gave the company as i felt it could add some confussion to any reader.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-organisation is a good idea. Dhatfield (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add context - was this fought between the entire Western Desert forces on both sides (what proportion?), or advanced elements of both? The reader, accustomed to European battles may be confused. Was this near the start, middle or end of the Western Desert campaign? Your background is too dense and detailed to get 'the big picture'.

An entire order of battle is provided, the info box also states it is elements of which particular Corps and the number of tanks involved, that 3 infantry battalions were the main allied force (similar information for Axis forces is to sketchy, otherwise i would have noted). What exactly is it your suggesting, am confused somewhat?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you provide excellent detail, but the text should contain some sense of scale. Something like "The battle involved the majority of the Allied forces outside Tobruk and approximately half of the Axis tank forces." (or whatever the numbers are) Now I know that this was a big deal as far as the Desert War was concerned. Did the Axis lose 20% of their tanks or 2%? How severe were the losses to the British in terms of their fighting effectiveness? Dhatfield (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Dhatfield (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, some questions underneath your points for you.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]