Talk:Battle of Sharon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 09:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC) I'm starting the review of this article now. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There are some serious issues here. The grammar and prose is in need of significant work throughout. An example from the lead is "These major infantry attacks by large formations in a set piece attack, created a gap in the front line through which the Desert Mounted Corps cavalry advanced many miles behind enemy lines to capture Afulah, Beisan and Jenin the next day and get in position to capture many thousands of retreating German and Ottoman soldiers in the following days". This very long sentence has only two commas, one of which is a list comma. The subject of the sentence is not clear and the repetition of "attack" in the early part of the sentence needs a rework. Other examples include the use of "was" instead of "were" in the lead, ie using singular past tense instead of plural past tense, ie "the ... trenches were heavily attacked" should be used. "Firepower" is one word. There are dozens of such issues in the lead alone. There are multiple issues with grammar, misuse of the semi-colon, unclear sentence construction and spelling errors just in the lead which continue throughout the article. The significant overuse of quotations that should simply be rendered as plain prose is also an issue. I recommend a thorough WP:GOCE copy edit to bring the article up to GA standard against 1a. Thanks for that. It was copyedited by a GOCE editor who spent a lot of time on the citations which I thought was outside the concerns of GOCE and was non-plussed when this copyedit was complete in a day. At that point I did not know how best to proceed, so continued to submit it for GA as was my stated reason for requesting GOCE. Having just spent some time on the intro I quite see the problems and will address them as best I can. --Rskp (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC) The article has been copyedited fairly thoroughly over the last several days when most of the major problems have been weeded out. --Rskp (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	There are a number of issues here. 1. WP:LEAD The first sentence does not mention any of the following facts; that this battle was; part of the Battle of Megiddo; part of the Sinai and Palestine Campaign; or part of WWI. For this reason among several others it "drops the reader into the middle of subject from the first word" contrary to WP:LEAD, and does not meet the MOS requirements for the lead section in the areas of "first sentence" and "contextual links" at a minimum. It needs a major rework after a close reading of WP:LEAD The lead has been extensively rewritten. --Rskp (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC) 2. Layout OK, but there are some very small sections that would probably be better rendered as embedded lists. Numerous subsections have been merged to simplify the layout. --Rskp (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC) 3. WP:WTW OK. 4. Fiction OK. 5. List incorporation I can see there has been a serious effort to avoid embedded lists, but there are a number of areas where embedded bulleted lists would be appropriate, particularly where you explain what a series of formations or units did etc. Hi, the motive for the serious efforts to avoid embedded lists has been ignorance. I've had a brief look at MOS but can't find reference to them. I have used bullets and numbers elsewhere - is that what you mean? --Rskp (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	In the background section of the article, is a citation needed for the reference to the Hundred Days Offensive which was not mentioned by the sources quoted but is supported by a link to the appropriate article? --Rskp (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	But only just, there is a lot of what some reviewers might consider edit-warring going on regarding a couple of issues, notably the local population. I take the view that robust discussion is not grounds for a no here, but if the issue cannot be resolved by consensus on the talk page, it should go to some sort of dispute resolution IMO, and I wouldn't bring it back to GAN until the matters are resolved. The description of the people living on the battlefield has been cut at the insistence of Jim Sweeney and his consensus of editors in the sway of Anglocentrice and German/Ottoman-centric historians. --Rskp (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The following images need their licensing fixed. 1. File:AWMH18747Afulah.jpg 2. File:IWM HU69889.jpeg 3. File:AWMB02113 HandleyPage Aircraft.jpg 4. File:AWMB02101Wreckage.jpg 5. File:Cutlack Map8 p.160.jpeg 6. File:AWMB03305Anebta.jpg URAA tag added. --Rskp (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Some captions are too long and much of the text should be provided in the article body. An example is File:Falls Map 21det.jpeg. What is a Falls Map? The use of this term is unclear, "Map of the situation as at 04:30 23 September 1918 showing..." would probably be sufficient. Done. --Rskp (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	A long and detailed article that covers the subject more than adequately and has many good features. Unfortunately it falls down significantly in GA attribute 1, and the issues in areas such as grammar, spelling, punctuation and prose mean that there isn't scope to put this article on hold as the copy edit needs to be comprehensive and will take some time. I strongly recommend a WP:GOCE copyedit followed by a MILHIST peer review then re-submit to GAN. Well done on your efforts so far and good luck with improving the article. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks for that. The article has been fairly extensively copyedited and reconstructed. I'd be grateful if you could have another look to see if its approaching GA yet. --Rskp (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)