Talk:Battle of Magdhaba/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 01:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   You're using a lot of passive voice. Forex: railway and water pipeline were steadily being constructed eastwards which would, IMO, be better written as ... "was steadily constructed eastwards" or "to the east". The whole background section doesn't flow well; you might consider focusing it a little more specifically on the situation in Egypt and the Sinai. How do you develop a garrison? Don't you place them instead? This is awkward: On 22 December (the day after El Arish was occupied), the leading brigade of the 52nd Division reached the town; with the 5th Mounted Yeomanry Brigade, fortified and garrisoned the position. This doesn't read well: On the banks of the Wadi el Arish 25 miles (40 km) south east of El Arish Magdhaba and Abu Aweigila (about another 15 miles (24 km) further along the wadi) were garrisoned by Ottoman forces.

• Have begun a thorough reread and re edit along the lines you suggest. --Rskp (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The re edit is complete along with considerable reorganisation of material in background, prelude and aftermath. --Rskp (talk) 06:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Why does cite 34 give the full data for the book when all other cites are short format? Especially since the book is in the References. Don't forget a period after pp in cites 3 and 38, which need to be consolidated.

• These cites are unknown to me, I believe they were already in the article when I started to edit it.--Rskp (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The cites have been grouped and cleaned up. Kress's book did not have publishing details but the WorldCat gave details of two publishers both of whom have been added. --Rskp (talk) 06:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   I don't understand the basis for the criticism of Chauvel. When did he decide to withdraw? Integrate the criticism section into the main text. Not sure how Murray's broad responsibilities are relevant to this article.

• Its a can of worms which I've put into notes. --Rskp (talk) 06:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Murray's broad responsibilities are included to give readers a wider view of what was going on in the region at the time. There was a long gap between Romani and Magdhaba and wanted to describe what was going on rather than jumping straight into the fighting. I appreciate that the whole section was a mess and have reorganised this info into a subsection which hopefully makes sense of their inclusion.--Rskp (talk) 07:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

1. B. Focused:

   The clarification note needs to be answered. Is Chauvel's period of leave really relevant? Are Izzet Bey and Rushti Bey really notable? Why are you telling the reader how many shells the Inverness battery fired before you describe the battle? And we already know that the Hong Kong Battery is composed of mountain guns. This isn't quite correct: The column had been guided by scouts although the garrison's fires had been clearly visible for about an hour, indicating an attacking force was not expected to set out so soon after the 30 miles (48 km) ride to El Arish. It wasn't the distance that was unexpected, but rather how quick the British troops advanced after taking El Arish.

• • Again Chauvel's leave has been reorganised and hopefully makes sense now. Another zealous editor put the red links links to a couple of units (which I've kept) and on these two fairly obscure people along with other obscure places. They have been cut although said editor stated they were needed for this review. I've put the shell count in a note - its an indication of the amount of artillery activity during the battle. That terrible sentence has been rewritten. --Rskp (talk) 06:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC) --Rskp (talk) 07:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

2. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

3. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

4. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm going to take a break now; I'll come back for the rest of the review once most of the points that I've already raised have been addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the Background section; see if they work for you.

• I think the British War Office policy section needs to reduced to something along the lines of "the policy was reversed after the accession of Lloyd George in December 1916".
  • If its a big problem for you I will cut the refs to the Somme etc but I think they add weight to the reasons why the policy changed.
• Why should I care that Chauvel had leave?
  • Well because these major changes occurred while he was on hols. In consolidating the paras as you suggest this may be more apparent.
• Consolidate some of the very short paragraphs in the Eastern Force section. **Done
• This is awkward By early December 1916 construction of the railway had reached Bir el Mazar, and the last water wells before El Arish, situated about half way between Kantara on the Canal and the Egyptian\Ottoman territorial border. This might have to be split into two sentences.
  • Yes, I've had a go at it.
• Consolidate some of the short paragraphs in the Battle section. **Done.

That's it for now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Thanks a lot. --Rskp (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Why there has been significant progress on this article, it cannot be regarded as stable at this moment and I am failing it. I suggest you resubmit once you have resolved your differences with the other editors and I'll be happy to re-evaluate it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)