Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Operation Badr (1973)

Operation Badr (1973)

Around six months ago I made a rewrite of this article and since then, I have been continually adding to it. This [1] is how the article used to be. I think it might qualify for GA. I'm particularly concerned about prose and any NPOV issues. Any suggestions and criticisms are welcome. --Sherif9282 (talk) 09:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created the initial stub on the topic many years ago, and am really impressed by the expansion you have undertaken. One thing I find lacking is any discussion of the political ramifications of the battle. Sadat became the "Hero of the Crossing" securing his internal position and that of the Egyptian regime. This gave Sadat the ability to sign peace with Israel, while the initial defeat also convinced Israel of the need to negotiate towards peace. - SimonP (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. The sources I have at hand do not go into the political impacts of the battle, so I can't back up anything I add on this topic, which is already sufficiently covered I believe in the Yom Kippur War. Cheers. --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added something about the political impact of the battle. I realise it has little to do with Sadat's widespread popularity after the war. This is something I'll certainly be able to do once I have new books on the topic. Thanks for your review. --Sherif9282 (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert

I haven't read the whole thing through yet, but so far it looks comprehensive and well cited. A couple of points I have so far (mostly just nitpicks, but can help get it rated higher):

Endashes are required for date and page ranges (check the citations list as there are many that require endashes), e.g. pp. 101-102 should be pp. 101–102);

Done --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some sections are quite long and aren't broken up by an image, if possible I would suggest trying to find a few more images so that you can break up the long sections of text. I know you have quite a few images so far, but it would probably make the article a bit more visually appealing;

Articles on the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War have a very visible lack of images. There are tens of photographs available online, but only in forums, blogs, and the like. I just can't find any images with a suitable copyright.

Emdashes are required in text rather than hyphens (e.g. "etc... - before any bridges were set up" should be "etc...— before any bridges were set up"

Done I made a few exceptions however (for example: anti-tank, air-to-air, and weapon designations like T-55, MiG-21...) --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

possibly try to use convert tags for distances and measurements as some parts of the world use kilometres and some use miles. If you put in a convert tag it makes it conceptually easier for all readers. For example: 100 kilometres (62 mi) is achieved by adding the following: {{convert|100|km|mi}} .

Done --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the citations list please check that all page ranges are denoted by "pp.", as I think some have just "p." which would indicate only one page (another nitpick, sorry).

Done --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway that is it for now. Hope it helps. I will have a more comprehensive read over the article soon and provide more feedback if I can think of anything. This is not an area of history that I have much knowledge of, so unfortunately I can't really help with any of the content, mainly just technical stuff. Good work so far, by the way. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I really needed someone to point out the various technicalities that needed to be fixed. --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I've done some more MOS work on the article. I think I've fixed most of the ndashes and mdashes (you had incorrectly used ndashes in some places where mdashes should have been used). Not to worry, though, it is no big deal and I may well have made errors. I would like to echo what has been said below, though, there are some tense issues with the text, e.g. "From 22:30 to 01:30 after midnight, all bridges—eight heavy and four light bridges—are laid, and along with the ferries, begin transporting reinforcements to the opposite bank." The issue with this sentence is the words 'are' and 'begin', they should be replaced with 'were' and 'began'. Do you see the issue? There are other instances throughout. A thorough copyedit would fix this, but unfortunately I don't have the time to do it. Sorry. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize the article needs a copyedit. Is it a requirement that the article be an FAC to I ask someone listed here for a level 4 & 5 copyedit? As for the n and mdashes, see the link below to the section of the MoS on the use of those two dashes. It allows spaced ndashes to be used as an alternative to mdashes. I did this because the text looked better that way. Cheers. --Sherif9282 (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Fuchs

Admittedly, there's the year of the operation in the disambig title, but it still reads odd that no mention of the actual date of the operation is made in the lead's first paragraph, especially when you start talking about when they planned it. "initiating the 1973 Yom Kippur War against Israel" or similar would fix that.
"Under the restrictions of Israeli air supremacy, Egypt laid down limited objectives to pursue. Preceded by exhaustive preparations, meticulous planning, and an extensive deception operation, Operation Badr was launched in conjunction with Syria on October 6, 1973, a day that coincided with Yom Kippur, the Jewish day of atonement, and also coincided with the Muslim month of Ramadan." This reads as jargon. I know that what you're probably trying to say is that since the Israelis had the advantage in airpower Egypt planned a more limited offensive, but these statements don't necessarily link together well, and don't in fact seem to square with the body text (which says that due to air superiority the Arabs planned a multipronged strike to dilute the air force's effectiveness.) It's in this paragraph that I start seeing a major problem throughout the article, that of improper tone and POV language. This might in fact be an issue with the actual sources, which is also a worrying sign. The sentence tries to smash too much information on the significance of the date into the paragraph and sounds bad.
POV, hyperbole: " daring assault that caught Israel and the world by surprise", "the supremely confident, even arrogant view"
"A certain number of Egyptian commanders", if it's a certain number, why can't you tell us?
File:Operation Badr.png missing key information, such as where it was originally published/date/author. As it stands it's licensing tag is invalid.
"On October 6, at 14:00, the Fourth Arab-Israeli War began." I'm pretty sure it wasn't immediately called the "Fourth Arab-Israeli War". Just tell us that's when they attacked. We're not a history channel special.
In keeping with tone problems, there's a bunch of weasel words and qualifying phrases which undermine the text, such as "all in all", "apparently", "Nevertheless", and such.
Another worrisome issue, "discovering the Arab intention to go to war only nine and a half hours before the outbreak of hostilities"... the text that runs before makes it clear they didn't just open a door and "discover" that they were going to be attacked.
MoS issues: incorrect use of em/en-dashes and hyphens throughout.
Rundancies abound: try User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a: redundancy exercises (for example using the more verbose "as well as" instead of a simple "and").
"It reached the opposite bank around 14:40 without losing a single casualty"; you can't lose casulties, only sustain them (or lose men); reword.
"brought forward to breach a way through"; 'a way through' is redundant with the word breach, which if used in such context ("to breach") should be followed by a noun (what they are breaching). Reword.
"By now company and battalion—size units of Israeli tanks and infantry begin reaching the Bar Lev Line, but are ambushed by Egyptian troops who prevent them from reaching their positions."; spot the tense errors.
The article appears to use American English for most of its length, but randomly uses the BrEng "kilometre" spelling.

Overall it is my opinion that the prose needs a significant copyedit and audit for POV language. The article does not come off as neutral, and if the problem is with the sources themselves, a deeper appraisal of the article foundation may be in order. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your comments have been met. I don't know how to change the spelling for kilometre without removing the conversion template (in use throughout the article). I'll probably ask someone to copyedit the article and check for POV language. I suppose I'll have to further elaborate on why Egypt pursued limited objectives. How would you rate the article's neutrality on a scale of 1 to 5? (5 meaning the article is outrageously biased and 1 representing the complete opposite) Take into account the latest edits when making your rating. Thanks --Sherif9282 (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would give it an overall 3. Most of the issues seem based in the prelude, strategies, and preparation sections, which I think is probably due to the sources trying to "color up" items. But we shouldn't be saying anyone was "mauled", and if we're calling the Six Day War "disastrous" we should spell out why it was. Sections of the preparation seem overly pro-Egyptian (the deception bit) and I think need to be substantially reworded. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to tone down the POV in the first few sections, and ask someone to copyedit for prose. This has been very fruitful. So thanks a lot. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jinnai

Resolved comments from 陣内 _Jinnai

First off I think the Prologue section should be renamed. It gives the sense that this is not an article, but a story. And while in some sense it is a story, it is first and foremost an article.

Second, I believe acronyms for everything should have the name used at least once in each article usually with a parenthesis. This is a real problem for acronyms that have multiple meanings. RPG comes out to me as the most. Im addition to its use here, it is a programing language and a genre of game.陣内 _Jinnai 04:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I implemented your second suggestion. As for your first, I can't come up with another title. Any suggestions? --Sherif9282 (talk) 10:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've used Background already, perhaps Pre-war or Before the war?陣内 _Jinnai 18:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about it now? --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine.陣内 _Jinnai 03:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]