Wikipedia:Peer review/Gallipoli Campaign/archive2

Gallipoli Campaign

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it is well on the way to being ready for FA status, but there is always discussion to be had and details to iron out. It is well written, informative and seemingly compliant with all WP, but more experienced eyes may have a different opinion. I am not a regular editor of this page (so apologies if anyone was already prepping this and if I have jumped the gun!), but am happy to respond to opinion and help make edits as required.

Thanks, Stingray Trainer (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stingray Trainer, just so you're aware, FAC requires that you consult with the regular editors of the page before nominating - you might want to do that sooner rather than later. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria. Thanks for your comments. I was waiting to see the outcome of the peer review before getting in touch with the main authors (who seem to have gone quite quiet), but can try to contact them sooner and get them involved as well. Stingray Trainer (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like any article as visible as this one a large number of editors have contributed to it over the years, although if I recall correctly @AustralianRupert:, @Keith-264: and myself worked on it a bit to get it through GA in 2013. Speaking for myself of cse I'd be happy to help out where I can (other commitments permitting) in addressing any points that may be offered as part of this current process. Anotherclown (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, it made a pleasant change to work in a team again (was it really that long ago?). Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)

G'day. I'm going through doing a light c/e, adding links, clarifying etc, but this article is obviously in fine shape already. I have a few queries, which I'll post as I get to them:
Under 18 March 1915: It says "Despite some damage sustained by ships engaging the Ottoman forts", this is a bit clunky. What damage and to whom/by whom? Perhaps "Despite some damage to the Allied fleet caused by fire from the Ottoman forts"? If that is what is intended.
Where it says "The ANZACs departed Egypt", did this apply to the British and French contingents, or only the ANZAC Corps?
the Narrows is mentioned, but it could do with an explanation, it is also rendered as the narrows. Suggest being consistent with this, and linking if a link exists
One section is called "Land campaign" and the next is called "Land operations". I suggest "Preparations for invasion" for the first section.
suggest making the treatment of ANZAC and Anzac consistent, I know this is a point of contention...
"a solo effort by New Zealander Bernard Freyberg" begs the question of what he did
suggest using a section heading of "Landings" then subheadings for the two landings, so things don't get confused.

Thanks for taking the time to go through this. Re movement of British and French forces from Egypt I'm a little unclear on the timeframe. Bean The Story of ANZAC, Volume 1, p. 209 mentions that the French division and the RND were due to arrive at Lemnos shortly after the AS 3rd Bde in early March. However, they seem to have subsequently been mostly sent to Alexandria which then became the base of the operation (due to lack of wharves at Lemnos for restowing the ships and limited water supply also?) As such I've made a couple of changes to mention their movements but have tried to be generic [1] as the sources I have are not specific. Perhaps @Keith-264: or @AustralianRupert: might be able to clear this up? Anotherclown (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, PM, thanks for your time. I added something from Hart regarding the "ANZACs departed Egypt" bit: [2]. Does that help? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Reading it again, I think the Landings subsection does need a bit of work. As an amphibious operation involving naval and some air operations, it should probably be promoted to section level in the article structure, rather than being a subsection of a Land campaign section. In my view it should have an intro para then break into two subsections to cover the two main landings at Helles and Anzac in chronological order until 1 May or so. At present the first para is ok as an intro, but it then jumps around the place, starting with Helles but jumping forward to 1 May then back to 27 April, back to 25 April, then back to an overview of Helles on 25 April, then to Anzac then back to Helles, then a summary of the landings and some info about air operations and AE2. I think air and naval operations unrelated to the actual landings would probably be best off dealt with elsewhere. This Landings section should also include information about the naval part of the landings and naval gunfire support provided, naming the main capital ships involved.
Did a small edit, then got absorbed and ended up going through the campaign section. I noticed that Turkish rather than Ottoman had crept in, that place names had been put in quote marks so took them out (is this a usage of OzEng?). Counterattack wasn't hyphenated, personalities weren't always referred to by surname after being introduced with full name and rank, Liman von Sanders was sometimes called Von Sanders but the von is only used with the full name and I put unit commanders in () at the first mention of the unit. I'm not sure how much these conventions apply in this article but for the moment it's consistent. Some of the dates had 1915 appended, is this necessary when the main campaign ended before 1916? Some sections mixed description and explanation and some had foreshadowing and repetition (two battalions, the...and...) which seems pointless to this unreconstructed (and superannuated) 1970s egalitarian. ;o) Quite happy to follow a consensus if one has been established on these points and rv as desired. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Am I right that pic sizes are done by |upright= now, rather than X00px? If so should we standardise the scale for maps/pics/diagrams?Keith-264 (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think that would be a good change, happy for you to go ahead with this if you are up for it. Or I'll have a try at some point. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PM - re your suggestion to split landing section into subsections for Helles and Anzac, yes I see your point. If anything the section focuses on Helles and doesn't provide much on Anzac so I think splitting wouldn't be hard but would probably require us to draft a section for Anzac from scratch.@Keith-264: and @AustralianRupert: are you guys amenable to this occurring? Anotherclown (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I don't have any dramas with this. Unfortunately, I'm not in the right frame of mind right now to write much (if anything) at the moment. Sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you feel better soon Oz. In general I'm happy to follow consensus, the article looked like it needed a spring clean again but that always happens once one is stabilised and then gets edited by divers hands in divers places, the style becomes inconsistent. Nothing bad about that of course but the sections I've looked at are like a redraft now. With the caveat that I need to get the last Third Ypres article finished (bit of a mental block with it) by 31 July, I'm happy to keep plugging away. I'll have a dash at the pic/map sizing next. Keith-264 (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PM - I've now split the Landings section and added a bit more on Anzac and reorg'd some of the material per comments above. My edits here [3]. As I said in my edit summary its rough I'll admit so I have no issues with others doing with it as they see fit. Comments / thoughts on this change? Also Keith - I've tried to follow my understanding of the existing style of the article but always happy to be corrected where I drift from what has been established of cse. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 12:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My alterations were cosmetic and prose style is a matter of individual taste so I did it subject to opinion, rather than right or wrong.Keith-264 (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Set the pics/maps etc arbitrarily at upright 1.25 then altered a few that had smaller or larger thumbnails than usual. The pics/maps look a bit biggish in my laptop so would appreciate opinion on how it looks for others. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone familiar with a convention that if the detail in a pic faces left, that it should go on the right and if the detail faces right it should go on the left margin? If we apply it here some will have to be swapped round. Keith-264 (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Keith - MOS:IMGLOC does include this guidance: "It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text.". That said I have no particular preference either way. My main concerns with image placement is more that they are in an appropriate place to illustrate the text, and staggered left and right to avoid "sandwiching" etc. As such if you think there are some images that would work better facing towards the text then I have no issues with them being moved around if it still means they are in the right spot text-wise and maintain the left / right offset (unless others don't think this warranted). Does anyone else have a view on this? Anotherclown (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't like cluttering the left margin I don't care for the convention much either but I look for pics that "look" left. How about the size of the images? Too big or about right? Keith-264 (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, the images look reasonably spaced on my machine. The only tweak I'd suggest would be to right align "File:Landing at Gallipoli (13901951593).jpg". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DoneKeith-264 (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Seraphim System

"The peninsula forms the northern bank of the Dardanelles, a strait that provided a sea route to the Russian Empire, one of the Allied powers during the war." - seems like this wording could be improved. Not too sure about the comma use (if you removed the clause the sentence wouldn't make sense, so I'm inclined to think it needs revision.)
"Intending to secure it, Russia's allies Britain and France launched a naval attack followed by an amphibious landing on the peninsula, with the aim of capturing the Ottoman capital of Constantinople (modern Istanbul)" - intending to secure the peninsula?
"The naval attack was repelled and after eight months' fighting, with many casualties on both sides, the land campaign was abandoned and the invasion force was withdrawn to Egypt." - consider splitting into two sentences.
"In Turkey, it is regarded as a defining moment in the nation's history, a final surge in the defence of the motherland as the Ottoman Empire crumbled." - consider more neutral wording, and being more specific about who regards it this way.
"the declaration of the Republic of Turkey eight years later" - does this mean the creation of the Republic of Turkey? Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]