Talk:Battle of Tulkarm

Copy edit request

Hello. I have added these remarks to your request at GOCE, which has been archived. When the changes are made, you are welcome to request another copy edit.

I think for a GAR this article will need some more development. You will need to provide some First World War background for the lead, so a reader coming across the article can learn something about the wider significance of this battle. We need to know in simple terms why the British and Ottomans were there, where they had come from, what their goals were, who their commanders were, and why there were German troops fighting with the Turks. The story needs to stand alone, rather than being read as a disjointed part of a series on the Middle East conflict, as it does now. Good luck. Rumiton (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've attempted to answer your questions briefly and simply. --Rskp (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks, a lot better but I think we still have a way to go. I would like to see the lead start out something like: "The Battle of Tulkarm was fought on (date) near the town of (name) in present-day (country and region), when troops of (country), who were attempting to (what) clashed with troops from (country) and (country), who were trying to (do something else). It was a (significant) battle of the (name) campaign, as it led to (what). There were (number) casualties." The lead needs to give the casual reader a summary of the article. If the rest of the article does not currently give these details, some more research might be needed. Rumiton (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Then you would have it read "The Battle of Tulkarm was fought on 19 September resulting in the capture of Tulkarm on the West Bank in the Palestinian territories when British Empire troops attacked German Empire and Ottoman Empire forces. The Battle of Tulkarm formed a part of the Battle of Sharon which in turn was a part of the Battle of Megiddo; which set piece battle resulted in the defeat of three Ottoman armies and the capture of tens of thousands of prisoners and many miles of formerly Ottoman territory from Nablus to Aleppo."

There was no "attempt" or "trying to" this was a battle which resulted in a very significant victory. I don't know what you are referring to here "It was a (significant) battle of the (name) campaign, as it led to (what)." Tulkarm was only part of Megiddo; each part of Megiddo was important but no more so than any other, its all integrated. --Rskp (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. I am something of a WW1 buff myself, but never happened to hear of this battle. I have no prejudices about it. I was just asking that you explain the significance of the battle for other people who also don't know. I think what you have suggested above is pretty good, but I would also like to learn something more of the strategic significance of the battle. Was it just attrition, much like Verdun, or were the British trying to win enemy-held territory? If so, what towns or areas were they aiming at, and how well did they succeed? From which direction did they advance? What happened to the defeated armies? Things like that. Rumiton (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, reading through again, I think most of my questions are answered in the main body, but it is hard to understand. For example, could you perhaps rewrite this sentence: This tactic was so successful that the front line was quickly cut and the way cleared for the British Empire cavalry divisions of Desert Mounted Corps to quickly advance northwards up the Plain of Sharon to capture the Ottoman lines of communication in the rear of the two Ottoman armies German and Ottoman positions being attacked in the Judean Hills. I can't copyedit it if I can't understand it, and I can't. Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that was a terrible sentence. Its been re edited. --Rskp (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Rumiton, very much for copy editing this article. All the best, --Rskp (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You are most welcome. It's an interesting article. Rumiton (talk) 08:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Tulkarm (1918)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 18:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Pyrotec, your time and interest in this rather obscure area, are very much appreciated. --Rskp (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

This looks very much like a GA, but I'm going to review it, as before, section by section but leaving the Lead until the end. I hold to have this review finished either Saturday or Sunday. Pyrotec (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Background -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - The second paragraph has two direct quotations, one per sentence. Only the second quotation has a citation.

• Is a second citation required as both quotations are from the same source? --Rskp (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• The answer depends on what the citation is being used for. If it is only there to allow statement(s) to be verified, as per WP:RS then one citation (when applicable) could cover several statements/sentences, etc. When the citation is there because of Wikipedia:Quotations, each and every quotation needs a citation. Since there are two direct quotations ""very anxious to make a move in September" and "Another reason for moving to this line is that it will encourage both my own new Indian troops and my Arab Allies." and they are in different sentences, it appears that each sentence needs a citation. Pyrotec (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Citations added. --Rskp (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Otherwise OK.

• Prelude -
  • British plans and preparations -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - The first paragraph is worded a bit vaguely and it has minor differences from earlier information. In the background it states (summarised) the front line is ~ 15 mile across the Plain of Sharon, ~ 15 miles over the Judean Hills, it dropped about 3,000 ft in an unstated distance, and ~ 18 miles in Jordan Valley, whereas this subsections states 15 miles and 45 miles. There are (from Background) two 15 mile stretches. In the second paragraph, when the Battle of Sharon is mentioned, the reviewer suspects that first paragraph is discussing the first 15 miles of the front line, not the second, but the third paragraph starts discussing the Judean Hills, so perhaps it was the second 15 miles, not the first 15 miles that the first paragraph was referring to.

• Yes, I quite agree - have edited both paras to, hopefully, clarify the different emphasis. --Rskp (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. It's much improved. Pyrotec (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

....Stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - The third paragraph has three direct quotations that are uncited, only the paragraph has a citation.

• Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - The paragraph has "grown" a {{clarification needed}} flag.

• I'm not sure what the problem is here. The 60th Division Londoners had all been transferred to the western front except those who remained to make up the division along British Indian Army style; that is one British to three British Indian Army battalions. I've tried to clarify it as best I could. --Rskp (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - The second, fourth and fifth paragraphs refer to an unnamed railway(s), could this be the Hejaz Railway or its branch line the Jezreel Valley railway.

• Info added. --Rskp (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - I believe that the bracketed note in the fifth paragraph "(See Battle of Nablus (1918) for a detailed description of this corps' and Chaytor's Force' operations in the eastern Judean Hills and further east to Es Salt and Amman." would be more appropriate as a Note in the Notes section.

• Done. --Rskp (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• • British Empire deployments -

• Looks OK.

• • German and Ottoman forces and preparations -

• Looks OK.

• Battle -

....Stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Bombardment -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - The first paragraph appear to be a quote, but the opening quotation mark (") is missing, only the end one is there, so I'm not too clear where the quote starts.

• Added quotation marks. --Rskp (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - I'm not sure that I understand the grammar in the final part of: There was no systematic attempt at wire-cutting by the artillery; the leading units were to cut it by hand or carry some way of crossing it. (I understand cutting it by hand).

• The reference does not give a means of crossing the barbed wire just that they had them, but the link refers to men laying on it so others could walk over them. As its not cited I've tried to be as circumspect as possible while suggesting bridging the wire in some way. Would they have had carpet or made wooden stiles? If they did I haven't come across a source which describes them. --Rskp (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't have an answer. It appears to me that barbed wire was a obstacle to slow men and horses down, so that the "side" that laid it had a better opportunity to disable/kill those that tried to cross. If you had to cross it, its appears that doing it as quickly as possible to avoid being disabled/killed was desirable (but being quick and being careful are opposite ends of the spectrum). Tanks appear to be a way of doing it, but looking at Tanks the War Office was against them in WW I, and it appears to be the Navy that developed the concept at that time for the UK. Pyrotec (talk) 10:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Otherwise OK.

• • 60th Division breach Ottoman front line , Ottoman defenders in the coastal sector & Capture of Tulkarm -

• There is a direct quotation, in a box from Case, but who is Case, this appears to be the only occurrence of "Case"?

• Done. --Rskp (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Otherwise, these three subsections look OK.

• Aftermath -

....Stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Looks OK.

• Units of measure some sections use Imperial then Metric others Metric then Imperial it needs to be the same format throughout. Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for highlighting that. It's mostly Imperial (and derived Metric), but the subsection where this reversal occurs is German and Ottoman forces and preparations. Perhaps this is due to the sources used. I used to have these big arguments when I was helping to fix "problems" at WP:FAC (I've not yet nominated an article). You'd get these (silly, in my view) situations where some original source(s) was/were metric and it/they had to be converted to imperial (and the metric equivalent provided in brackets) because the rest of the original sources were imperial (and the metric equivalent provided in brackets). Pyrotec (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• WP:Lead -

• Looks OK. Pyrotec (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Well cited and referenced.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

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

   Well illustrated with maps and contemporary images.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This is the second 'battle in the Middle East (1918)' nomination that I've review and like the first nomination I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations to the editors that have worked on it. Pyrotec (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reviewing this article to GA. I'm very grateful to you for your advice and interest. All the best, --Rskp (talk) 04:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)