Talk:Capture of Tiberias (1918)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 09:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC) I'll have a look at this one shortly. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:59, 30 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 issues here. The grammar and prose is in need of minor work throughout. * Setting aside the lead (dealt with below), an example is "After the Battle of Samakh in the early morning of 25 September, strong patrols advanced eastwards from Samakh up the Yarmuk valley, but every bridge over the Jordan River was found to be strongly guarded, 30 defended one bridge and 60 Germans in a redoubt with an engine and tender defended a railway bridge.". This very long sentence needs to be broken up into two sentences, and I recommend you go through the whole article looking for this type of sentence. * The para on Tiberias itself should be moved up to the top of the Background section to improve the flow. * The first para of the Battle section appears to preempt the action, and should go to the bottom of the Battle section. * No need to repeat the brigade each regiment belongs to after it is mentioned initially ie 12th Light Horse Regiment (4th Light Horse Brigade). Suggest "12th Light Horse Regiment of the 4th Light Horse Brigade" in any case. * In "The division concentrated at Kafr Kanna arrived at about 22:00, also known as Cana, about 5 miles (8.0 km) east of Nazareth.", if Kafr Kanna is also known as Cana, put it immediately after it in brackets. * Link Hotchkiss gun. * The infobox includes orgs not actually involved in this battle. Allenby, Chauvel and Fevsi Pasha are really not relevant to this engagement. The brigade commanders and garrison commander (if you know who that was) pretty much are the ones that need to stay. von Sanders maybe, at least he visited the place. Not sure why you have Australia separately in the infobox under British Empire. No casualties in infobox other than prisoners. Thanks for that. Have broken up most of the long sentences, moved the two para as you suggest, cut duplicate references to brigades, moved reference to Cana close to Kafr Kanna. Not sure what you want included in the infobox? If Australia is excluded, casual readers who are interested in operations by Australians will not be interested in this article. -- Rskp (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Suggest you bullet Australia under British Empire to show it was a part thereof at the time. Bullett added --Rskp (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Will have a go at the rest of the non–lead prose tomorrow. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The issue here is with the lead. 1. WP:LEAD The lead "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. I would also have a couple of sentences about the result of the action, eg how prisoners were taken, where did the rest of the garrison withdraw to etc. It needs a rework after a close reading of WP:LEAD Have re edited lead and included two sentences about the prisoners and garrison.--Rskp (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC) I have rewritten the lead. It's not the be all and end all, but it needed a re-jig. As a result I have taken out some of the easter–egging. I'll let you consider and modify as necessary the changes I've made to the lead before finalising my assessment of it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC) 2. Layout I suggest that the number of "See also"'s at the top of the Background section is excessive. If someone wants to read more widely, the Battle of Sharon will move the scope out a little and is probably sufficient as it will take a reader through the closely–related battles. See also's have been cut, but suggest keeping operations to which Tiberias directly relates, given the large complex nature of the battle of Sharon. --Rskp (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC) I understand your reasoning, but have culled them to conform with their purpose per WP:BODY, if they are linked in the body of the article, we don't use them as "see also"s. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Yes, I see your point. And the links cut are already in the infobox. Thanks for that. --Rskp (talk) 07:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC) My view is that given the complexity, the Background section should (briefly) describe the other relevant operations of the overarching battle rather than use an ugly and long list of "see also"'s. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Deleted see also in background section and included brief overview of lead up to Tiberias. --Rskp (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC) 3. WP:WTW OK. 4. Fiction OK. 5. List incorporation OK.
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.	The war diaries appear to be used as sources, so they should be moved up there and the External links section dispensed with, see WP:EL for what goes there. The war diaries have been moved into references. --Rskp (talk) 05:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC) OK. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:09, 2 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).	OK.
	2c. it contains no original research.	OK.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There doesn't appear to be a description of the garrison, which should go in the Background section after the description of Tiberias. Also other than the number of captured, no mention of casualties on either side. No, unfortunately at this stage this information is not covered in the sources. Falls notes that documents were lost during the retreat. Its possible there are none. Erickson who is the most likely historian current to include this information does not. --Rskp (talk) 05:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC) OK. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	There is too much detail regarding higher level formations and irrelevant information when we are dealing with an action that involved a couple of squadrons of LH plus a couple of armoured cars. For example, "13th Brigade, 5th Cavalry Division", von Sanders travelling companions, the Battle of Hattin etc. The division had been added so readers can know the larger unit the brigade was part of. There is so little available material on the Ottoman side, as you rightly point out that I've included whatever I could find. Liman von Sanders' escape from Nazareth put Tiberias on the alert. I'm reluctant to cut the reference to the historic battle of Hattin which has been included for the benefit of more general readers. --Rskp (talk) 05:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Now that I've looked at the lead, I'll have a look at the rest of the article from this perspective so you can see what I'm going on about. As far as the Battle of Hattin is concerned, it may or may not be "padding" as Jim has suggested, but we are talking about an area of operations with a rich history of warfare. We don't usually mention a previous battle on the same ground, but there's no rule against it that I'm aware of (except getting off topic). If it is important enough to note, then why not put it up the top rather than where it is. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC) The reference to the battle of Hattin appears at the point in the narrative when that ancient battleground was being traversed by the AMD.--Rskp (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	OK.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	OK.
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:AWMART02822 Tiberias.jpg 2. File:Gullett map 45.jpeg 3. File:AWMB00277helioTiberias.jpg 4. File:AWMH15573rationsTiberias.jpg These Australian War Memorial images and Australian Official History map are all Australian Government publications, published more than 50 years ago. Not sure what more is required. --Rskp (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Both need a US licence, as they are on the servers in the US. None of them have one. Have a look at WP:IUP. For an example, see File:Churches and fellow POWs.jpg Neither File:Churches and fellow POWs.jpg or the link to IUP provided show the tag you require. Can you tell me where it can be found. Thanks a lot, --Rskp (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC) I'd say the most likely US PD template is Template:PD-URAA. However, I suggest you ask one of the image gurus on MILHIST like User:Nikkimaria or User:Grandiose. I'm certainly no guru on image copyright, but I know that the PD-Aust template is insufficient. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Nikkimaria tells me its a commons version of PD-URAA on the "Churches and fellow POWs" photo, so I've added PD-URAA to the licences. --Rskp (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	* The caption for File:Falls Map 21det.jpeg is too long and much of the text should be provided in the article body. What is a Falls Map? Its a map published in Falls Official History much like Gullett's map. --Rskp (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Then there is no need to start every caption from his/her work with "Falls" or "Gullett". Just restrict the caption to what the actual image portrays, if you feel the need to cite it, add a citation to the caption rather than using the formula "Falls/Gullett map XX". It doesn't add to understanding and just begs questions. I've amended the Gullett caption and if you're happy with that or something similar without "Gullett" in it, we'll be done on this one. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC) So you don't require the identify of the sources of the maps used to illustrate the article in the captions? --Rskp (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC) The short answer is no. The image page provides that information if anyone needs it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC) The use of this term is unclear, "Map of the cavalry advances 19–25 September 1918" would probably suffice. Not sure I understand what's required here. I've edited the caption--Rskp (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC) * The Gullett map isn't adding anything with its current caption. It could add value to the article but it doesn't with the current caption. Added info to Gullett's map caption. --Rskp (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	A detailed article that covers the subject adequately and has many good features. I believe it can achieve GA with some work, and am placing it on hold for a week on that basis. It has a significant number of minor issues that add up to an obstacle to meeting GA attribute 1 unless carefully addressed. Well done on your efforts so far, and I look forward to seeing the improvements. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks for that. I've addressed most of the points you raise, more or less and look forward to hearing further from you regarding them. As you suggest the whole article needs a thorough re-read and I'll look at it again tomorrow. --Rskp (talk) 06:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Have completed a copyedit and dealt with issues arising. --Rskp (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC) A few things remaining, I've passed a few areas and will look at the others shortly. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Made a few more observations. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks a lot. I see your point about the lead. Its much clearer after your input. Most of the other issues have been addressed, more or less, except the question of the PD tag. Clearly its not a question of the photos not being ok, but I have no idea where to find the specific tag you request. --Rskp (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Nearly there, I'll just have a re-look at the prose throughout and finish up the review. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Have a look at my c/e, feel free to revert if I've changed the sense of anything etc. I have removed some of what I consider to be unnecessary detail. Once you've fixed any errors let me know and I'll finish up. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks a lot for that, the article is much improved. I've made a few slight tweaks. The first sentence was still awkward so I've rejigged it, but not sure if its within guidelines. Your time and effort are much appreciated. Kind regards, --Rskp (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC) No worries, sorry if I've been a pain. Well done, promoted. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks a lot, I really do appreciate the time and effort you have put in. --Rskp (talk) 06:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)