Talk:Second Battle of Bapaume/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 09:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Krishna, just a little reminder about this review! No rush, normally I don't remind people but it's just that Sharonink had a small concern about this. JAGUAR  17:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Sorry for the delay. Actually I was little busy in personal life. But I promise to review the article by this weekend. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Section 1;
  • On 8 August 1918, the Hundred Days' Offensive commenced and it would prove to be the last major campaign; try rewording as "On 8 August 1918, at end of the World War I, the Hundred Days' Offensive commenced and it would prove to be the last major campaign", something is required to say that the battle happened in WW I
    • Point taken, but I don't quite agree with your suggestion (it implies 8 August 1918 was the end of World War I). What do you think of my change? Zawed (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Generally "recaptured" is a single word. May be it what you mentioned is an English variation.
    • Made one word. Zawed (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
• Section 2;
  • 5th and the 63rd Divisions; were these two reserves also part of the original five, or separate? Mention that.
    • Revised text to make clearer. Zawed (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • New Zealand Divisions? How many? I think it is only one. If this corrected, the above issue will automatically addressed.
    • Revised text to make clearer. Zawed (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • made up of eight, mainly second class, divisions; can it be done as "made up of eight second class divisions"
    • No, there was one first class division but I have revised text to make clearer. Zawed (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • 15-kilometre (9.3 mi); abbreviate from second mention, also remove - to maintain consistency
    • All distance units abbreviated now. Zawed (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
• Section 3;
  • 3.1; 1,000 metres (1,100 yd); abbreviate
    • All distance units abbreviated now. Zawed (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • 3.1; 2:30am -> 2:30 am; per MOS:TIME
    • All instances of timings appropriately styled now now. Zawed (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Thanks for the review, all points addressed or responded to. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: just a ping to remind you of this review; all points addressed/responded to, I believe. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Section 3.2; All good.
• Section 3.3.1;
  • prisoners-of-war; Why "-" are used?

• Have deleted the dashes. Zawed (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• • ...with the advancing infantry but misidentified them and opened fire; Do mean this was a friendly fire? Mention clearly, it is bit confusing

• Have rephrased to make clear it was a friendly fire incident. Zawed (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• • reconnaissance planes; link the term to reconnaissance aircraft

• Done. Zawed (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Section 3.3.2;
  • "next day", "26 August"; both were redundant to each other, any one of them is enough

• Done. Zawed (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• • all three of the three battalions -> all the three battalions

• Done. Zawed (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• • several companies not receiving their orders until the barrage had already commenced -> several companies did not recive their orders until the barrage had already commenced

• Done. Zawed (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Section 3.3.3;
  • Russell? Who is he and his capacity?

• Good catch! Turns out I made an error in a pipelink to Russell in the 2nd para of the Section 2. Have fixed this now so it should be clear that he is commander of the NZ Division. Zawed (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• • was to continue; was to be continued

• Done. Zawed (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• All good with section 3.4 and 4
• All references are good.
• All images are appropriately licensed
• Lead; 21 August to 3 September 1918 -> 21 August 1918 to 3 September 1918, per MOS:DATERANGE, also in the Infobox
• 5.5% violation detected.

• Most of the commonalities are due to the use of the common terms "New Zealand Division" and "First World War". I don't believe that this warrants any action. Zawed (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

SOrry for the delay, good work. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: All points addressed, thanks for the review. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)