Wikipedia

Talk:Battle of Lone Pine/GA1

< Talk:Battle of Lone Pine
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Anotherclown in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago31 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 08:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Progression

edit
  • Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
  • Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

edit

Criteria

edit
  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    • Not sure about starting a sentence with "It" here: "It was part of a diversion to draw Turkish attention away from the main assaults against Sari Bair, Chunuk Bair and Hill 971, which became known as the August Offensive." Perhaps consider: "The battle was part of a diversion to draw Turkish attention away from the main assaults against Sari Bair, Chunuk Bair and Hill 971, which became known as the August Offensive."
    • For me the structure of the Prelude section seems a little counter-intuitive. Have you considered putting the "Military situation" section before the "Terrain"? It might introduce the reader to the topic a bit better. The reader is suddenly presented with the presence of ANZAC and Turkish lines but may not understand the reason for their existance until a couple of paragraphs later. Of course I know of no policy to back this up (suggestion only).
      • I think I decided to do it this way because it was the way Hawkeye and I structured the Milne Bay article. Anyway, I tried a number of times to rework this offline, but couldn't get it to flow when I turned it around. I think that the Military situation section flows into the Opposing forces section, but it doesn't seem to work if I move Terrain below that. I don't know, what do you think? AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
    • I'm a unclear what you mean here: "In front of this, the Turkish line extended from the head of a gully known as "Owen's Gulley" by the Australians south for 400 yards (370 m) towards the neck of Bolton's Ridge and continued south along a spur called Sniper's Ridge." Do you mean the Australians had extended the Turkish line of trenches following their capture?
      • No, this was before the attack. The "by the Australians" bit is explaining that they were the ones who called it "Owen's Gulley"; the Turks probably had a different name for it, but it doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere. It is definately a convoluted sentence, though, so I tweaked the punctuation. Does this make it a little easier to understand? AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
    • Language here: "Walker did not approve of an attack at Lone Pine, let alone a mere diversion." To me using the construction "did not approve" suggests Walker had some sort of say in the matter - although as soldiers both you and I know he probably didn't. Perhaps consider: "did not favour" (minor nitpick of course).
    • "via which reinforcements could advance", consider instead "through which reinforcements could advance"...
    • "Small units of Australians managed...", technically a "unit" is a battalion-size element. Perhaps reword to "small groups" or something similar.
    • I wonder if this is too colloquial "Due to concerns of shooting their mates..."?
    • Missing word here: "into a melee as the soldiers attacked each with bayonets and grenades...", consider "...into a melee as the soldiers attacked each other with bayonets and grenades..."
    • Repetition here: "These amounted to positions in the communication trenches on the flanks of the position..."
    • This seems an awkward construction: "making makeshift grenades...", perhaps consider rewording to "manufacturing makeshift grenades..." instead?
    • Repetition here: "launched between the junctions between..."
    • In the third and fourth paras of the aftermath you mention a stalemate developing. This is either a little repetitive or its a little contradictory. Presumably if a statlemate is developing in the first paragraph it has continued in the second? Could you possibly reword one?
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    • All major points cited using WP:RS.
    • Consistent citation style used throughout.
    • No issues with OR.
    • You might consider adding the ISSN for Wartime Magazine - (ISSN 1328-2727).
    • Is an OCLC available for Bean from World Cat?
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    • Major points are covered without going into undue detail.
    • You might consider mentioning in the lead that the battle occurred during the First World War (suggestion only).
    • Also in the final sentence of the lead you might consider mentioning the allied evacuation (suggestion only).
    • You seem to include more details about Turkish strength than that of the Australians in the prelude section (ref sentence begining "Opposing the Australians at Lone Pine, were..."). I know you detail the attacking units further down in the "Battle" section but you might consider a sentence on this here - perhaps identifying the initial brigade that would make the assault and its approx strenght?
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation):   b (all significant views):  
    • No issues here AFAIK.
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:  
    • All recent edits look constructive.
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned):   b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):   c (non-free images have fair use rationales):   d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:  
    • Images used are all in the public domain or licenced and seem appropriate for the article.
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:  
    • Overall this is an impressive article in my opinion. I am not very familiar with the details of this action, but it seems like a solid treatment of the topic without going into unnecessary detail. It is well written, well cited and balanced and is neatly presented.
    • Only a couple of points above to deal with or discuss before it can be promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Lone_Pine/GA1&oldid=511438152"