Talk:Third Transjordan attack/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 13:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll read through and start the review properly shortly. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking this on. Much appreciated. --Rskp (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Final bit. I still think the lead needs some work. I've tried a quick editing job below. It's lost the wikilinks, but have a look and see what you think. I've tried to condense it down to focus as much as possible on the TTA itsef.

"The Third Transjordan attack was an offensive carried out by the British Empire's Chaytor's Force against the Yildirim Army Group of the Ottoman Empire, between 21 and 25 September 1918. The attack formed part of the Battle of Nablus, itself part of the wider Battle of Megiddo, which was fought between 19 and 25 September in the last months of the Sinai and Palestine Campaign of World War I.

"The British attack began on 21 September, with an assault on Kh Fasail. The next day British forces attacked and captured the Ottoman Empire's 53rd Division of the Seventh Army. Retreating Ottoman columns were attacked as they attempted to cross the Jordan River at the Jisr ed Damieh bridge. The bridge and several nearby fords were captured, cutting the main Ottoman line of retreat to the east. Leaving detachments to hold the crossing points, Chaytor's Force advanced over the River Jordan, capturing the Fourth Army garrison at Shunet Nimrin before advancing to take Es Salt, a former Fourth Army headquarters. Pursuing the Fourth Army's VII corps, Chaytor's Force continued their advance to attack and capture Amman on 25 September. Several days later, the Ottoman's Southern Force, consisting of the Fourth Army's II Corps, surrendered to Chaytor's Force at Ziza, effectively ending military operations in the area.

"The victories during the Third Transjordan attack resulted in the occupation of many miles of Ottoman territory and the capture of the equivalent of one Ottoman corps. Meanwhile the remnants of the Fourth Army were forced to retreat north to Damascus, in disarray. The Desert Mounted Corps went on to capture Damascus on 1 October. The surviving remnants of Yildirim Army Group were pursued north to Haritan when Homs and Aleppo were captured. Fighting continued on 26 October, with the Charge at Haritan, but on 30 October the Armistice of Mudros was signed between the Allies and the Ottoman Empire, ending the Sinai and Palestine campaign." Hchc2009 (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. I appreciate your point and have rewritten the intro following your suggestions to refocus it on the TTA. --Rskp (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

• The lead needs a little work. Part of the problem is that there are three overarching battles being mentioned even in the first sentence - Battle of Nablus, Battle of Sharon and the Battle of Megiddo, combined with the campaign name and the WWI label. This makes it much harder for the typical reader to understand how the Third Transjordan attack (TTA) fits in. I'd strongly advise just listing one overarching battle in the first paragraph, e.g. "The Third Transjordan attack took place between 21 and 25 September 1918, during the Battle of Nablus in the last months of the Sinai and Palestine Campaign of the First World War."? That would carry the key information while still focusing on the TTA, and if someone wants to know where the Battle of Nablus fits in, they can click on the link and instantly see that it was part of the wider Battle of Megiddo. You'd then need to ensure that whichever battle you chose is then used to begin the second paragraph.
  • The TTA was part of the Battle of Megiddo and if I cut references to it then the TTA looses its reason for occurring. Also, there are overlaps where the Battle of Sharon, the Battle of Nablus and the TTA for instance, all mention the Wadi el Fara line of retreat, so the importance of the capture of the Jisr ed Damieh during the TTA would be lost if the Battle of Megiddo is not mentioned. Its unfortunate that the relationships between these battles can't be shown in the "part of" section in the infobox, but a consensus ruled against it. --Rskp (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Have substantially rewritten the intro to hopefully incorporate your thoughts and clarify the relationship between all these battles. --Rskp (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• "The Battle of Nablus began in the Judean Hills half a day after the main Battle of Sharon, when the British Empire's XX Corps attacked the Ottoman Empire's Yildirim Army Group's Seventh Army defending their line in front of Nablus." It's unclear from this if the British Empire's attack is the beginning of the Battle of Nablus, or the main Battle of Sharon.
  • added brackets to hopefully clarify this. --Rskp (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• "The main Battle of Sharon was fought from the Mediterranean Sea section of the front line..." This second paragraph starts again with a monster sentence (and some missing ]]s!). But, I'm not convinced you need most of this paragraph in the lead. The first paragraph has already positioned the reader, explaining that the TTA is part of a larger battle, explaining what the wider objective was and the lead should ideally keep the focus on the TTA. You could then continue with the third paragraph pretty much as is, and perhaps break it into two at "With the Fourth Army's VIII Corps in retreat..."
  • This has been substantially rewritten to hopefully clarify the fighting. --Rskp (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• " This Third Transjordan attack followed two unsuccessful EEF attacks across the Jordan River during the first Transjordan attack in March and Second Transjordan attack in April 1918 which included the First Battle of Amman." Chronologically, this felt out of place in the third para. Could it go at the end of the first paragraph of the lead instead?
  • Yes, I see your points. Working on it. Intro has been rewritten to hopefully clarify and simplify the information. --Rskp (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Done. --Rskp (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• "Background" - as written, it wasn't very clear how this linked to the TTA. "Several Ottoman army commanders in Palestine lost their commands after the Ottoman defeats..." for example, doesn't make clear why this led to or shaped the TTA. It feels as though the first two paragraphs might make better background to the wider Battle of Nabus/Megiddo article than this one, perhaps?
• "Major offensive operations in Palestine also became a low priority for the British Army in March, when the German Spring Offensive in France caused their postponement." This read awkwardly, probably because the section hadn't yet said that offensive operations were a strategic priority before March.
• The Background has been rewritten. Thanks for pointing out these weaknesses. --Rskp (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• "commanded by General Edmund Allenby" - you've mentioned him before, but this time he gets a wikilink and a full name - should be on the first use of his name.
• Done --Rskp (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• "The front line held by the Egyptian Expeditionary Force..." a very long sentence, needs splitting up somewhere.
• Done --Rskp (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• "well sighted enemy long range guns" - "sighted" or "sited"?
• Done --Rskp (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• "The Ottoman front line..." - again, a long sentence and needs breaking in two
• Done --Rskp (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• "strongly wired entrenchments" - any way of getting in that these are barbed wire entrenchments?
  • Well I'm not sure that it was, the source doesn't mention it.
• " by advanced posts which were also wired on" - not every reader will know what an advanced post is.
  • I guess it would be in front of the main line, but I don't know. Unfortunately I am limited to what the source says
• " individual wired-in redoubts " - again, worth considering what a reader will think this is (a redoubt surrounded by its own circuit of barbed wire? A redoubt out on its own, with barbed wire? a redoubt for an individual? etc.)
  • its how the source describes the defences
    • My advice would be to either place it in quotes (thereby communicating to the reader that we don't know quite what it was), or simply to just "redoubt". Hchc2009 (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Direct quotes added with citation. --Rskp (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• "sangars and posts" - not clear to me how a sanger and a post are different in this context.
  • no, I agree but its how the sources describe the positions. --Rskp (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
    • My advice would be to either place them in quotes (thereby communicating to the reader that we don't know quite what the difference is), or simply to just "posts" or "defences". Hchc2009 (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Direct quote added with citation. --Rskp (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Mounted divisions move out of the Jordan Valley: this bit threw me. Does it belong here, on in the Background? It felt like this section started most naturally with the "Chaytor's Force" elements.

Agreed. Moved to background. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "While these attacks by the XXI Corps and the breakthrough by Desert Mounted Corps, were being fought" - I'm not sure the "these attacks" works, as the previous paragraph has broken the link with the attacks.

Agreed. Rewritten.--Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "was "nearly equivalent to two divisions,"" - I'd usually advise giving the source of a quote in the main text (e.g. "historian X states that it was "nearly equivalent to two divisions"")

Added historian's name. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "ration strength" - could you wikilink this or add a footnote saying what this is? (NB: I know, but many non-military folk won't)

changed syntax. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "A Receiving Station" - I'm not sure this should be capitalised.

cut capitals. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Jordan Valley deployments, Preliminary operations, Plan: the very short sections made this a bit hard for me to read. Any chance to combining them to allow a flow of paragraphs?

Yes, done. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The infantry were organised into twelve " - MOS would have this as "12"

Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "At Baghalat, 6 miles (9.7 km) west north west of Umm esh Shert, the Seventh and Fourth Armies touched." - I'd start with the subjects of the sentence ("The Seventh and Fourth Armies touched at Baghalat...")

Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "vital tunnels and viaducts" - as per above, important to know who the quote is from in the main text

Rewritten. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "the German and Ottoman front line had been cut by infantry, and the cavalry" - slight POV tone here, which would be removed by specifying whose infantry and cavalry were involved.

Changed syntax. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "There they would be captured" - just to check: did you really mean the 7th and 8th Armies were captured?

No. Thanks. Qualification added. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Battle of Megiddo 19 to 20 September; Battle of Nablus right flank 19–21 September - I'm not sure that this material should be here, as opposed to in the background. The article is about the TTA, which starts on the 21 September, and I'll admit I found it a bit confusing to be through the background, the prelude, the orders of battle and then be presented by another two sections of further background. It would read much more easily if the article just had background, prelude, and then kicked off with the TTA proper on the 21 September as the main part of the article.

Moved subsections to background. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Battle of Nablus right flank 19–21 September. The first para is chronologically a bit odd. It starts off on 21 Sep, goes back over the last few days. The second para then doesn't really explain what date it is happening on.

Reorganised so chronology clearer. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "drove in outposts" ?

Tweaked this. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Chaytor's Force continued to vigorously patrol their front line..." Somewhere in the middle, this paragraph loses its way. It starts off with patrolling, and then starts to describe a sequence of attacks. It feels like it needs to be broken in two somewhere, or the initial sentence edited to help the reader, particularly given the detail.

rewritten. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "reported the whole area from Jisr ed Damieh bridge north to Beisan and from the Jisr ed Damieh bridge east across the Jordan Valley to Es Salt, quiet" - the "quiet" is stranded at the end, because of the intervening text

fix grammar. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• " the Wadi Fara elbow" - wasn't sure what an elbow was in this context

Added map to sort of explain this. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "fires also burned at the Balata dumps" - the "burned" is superfluous here

Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "unaware that Desert Mounted Corps had already occupied Beisan" - at this point, so is the reader (I don't think we've been told that it has been occupied yet)

Added a link to the article. Will this do? --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "by one section of machine gun squadron" - is squadron right here? You could surely have "a machine gun squadron" or "machine gun squadron A", but this doesn't parse right to me.

It would have been the brigade's machine gun squadron. Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Umm esh Shert and Mafid Jozele fords: I simply couldn't remember where these were by this point, or which bit of the force the Battalion Royal Fusiliers were under.

Added info to clarify these. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "the weakening Ottoman position at Mellaha" - hadn't the Imperial forces already pushed guns into Mellaha by this point?

Agree. Changed syntax. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "despite being strongly resistance" - not quite right in grammar here

Reworded. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Rujm el Oshir camp" - I'm not sure what this was, but I don't think its mentioned elsewhere

Added description of location and moved Cutlack's map which locates these places. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Ain es Sir camp" - ditto, no real idea where this is

ditto

• "The Ottoman Fourth Army had remained in position during the first three days of fighting west of the Jordan River" - a little confusing, because the article had the 4th Army retreating a few sections ago. Also unclear if this fighting was to do with the 4th Army or not.

Cut this confusing duplicate info. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Units of the Fourth Army then began to move " - not 100% when "then" is

Rewritten. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Chaytor's Force became aware of the retreat of the Fourth Army at 23:35 on 22/23 September, when orders were issued for attacks on Shunet Nimrin, Kabr Mujahid and Tel er Ramr. " - could mean that the orders were issued informing the Force of the retreat, or that they became aware of the retreat and then issued orders to attack.

Reorganised sentence. --Rskp (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• "mobile sections", "the immobile section". There's a risk of confusion between section/"part" and section/"small military organisation". You might want to chose a different label. I'm also not sure about "immobile", but it may be what's used in the literature of the time. (I'd say that one might be mobile, or you might lack mobility, but immobile sounded odd)

'Section' refers to part of a military unit. Some sections were designed to be stationary 'immobile' sections while others were designed to move 'mobile' sections. --Rskp (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• " The CRA" - I can't remember coming across this before.

Link added. --Rskp (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Before Haifa on the Mediterranean coast, was captured by the 14th Cavalry Brigade on 23 September during the Battle of Sharon, Chaytor's Force had crossed the Jordan River to climb to the Plateau of Moab and Gilead on their way to capture Es Salt that evening." - is the first half of this part of the TTA? If not, I couldn't quite work out what the link was.

It adds context. --Rskp (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• "in three columns on a 15 miles (24 km) front" - "across a 15 miles front"?

Rewritten. Hope its clearer. --Rskp (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Chaytor's Force entered the hills of Moab in three columns..." the detail in this paragraph meant that it didn't tell the story as well as a simpler version might have. I'll come back to this later with some ideas.

ditto --Rskp (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Chaytor's Anzac Mounted Division headquarters moved along the main road to Es Salt from Jericho via the Ghoraniyeh crossing of the Jordan River at 14:28" - unclear if this timing is when they started, crossed the river, or got to somewhere else.

Detail added. --Rskp (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• " concentrated at the Auja bridgehead," - it's been a long while since the bridgehead was mentioned; worth considering if the reader will have forgotten what it was by now.

Description added. --Rskp (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• " This extensive rearguard position was attacked and outflanked by advanced guard of the Canterbury Mounted Rifles Regiment. " - I couldn't remember if the regiment was part of the Brigade in the previous sentence or not.

Identified brigade. --Rskp (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The 20th Indian Brigade, which had been marching up this road, was ordered to send working parties to unblock the road." - repetition of road.

Tweaked sentence. --Rskp (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• "where they took out a section" - "destroyed" rather than "took out"?

Done. --Rskp (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The 1st Light Horse Brigade..." As a new section, probably worth contextualising the date here.

Done. --Rskp (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Only a rearguard of the Fourth Army was captured at Amman." - "a rearguard" or "the rearguard"?

Yes, others were encountered further north by Desert Mounted Corps. --Rskp (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• " would have been forced to detrain south of Deraa" - "were forced"?

Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Here they would find" - "Here they found"?

Fixed --Rskp (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• "several dumps" - "ammunition dumps"?

Not sure. --Rskp (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• "dropping in total four tons of bombs" - could safely be just "dropping four tons of bombs", and would avoid the "in" being misread

Fixed--Rskp (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Red Crescent train" - worth linking, I think this is the first instance of this

Thanks, done. --Rskp (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• "was reported to have been looted " - unclear from this if the report was that the Imperial forces had looted it and killed the occupants, or if it was found looted

reworded note --Rskp (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• "A total of 6,000 or 7,000 fugitives" - fugitives didn't feel quite right here (unless they were really escaped fugitives). "retreating soldiers"?

reworded. --Rskp (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• " three engines" - do we know what sort of engine?

Added info and source. --Rskp (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• "cacolets" - worth linking

added --Rskp (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• "On September 21st the NZMR Brigade,..." this long quote felt odd; might just be me, but it worth summarising it, or just using part?

Shortened quote. --Rskp (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

(c) it contains no original research.

• None found. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

• Looking good to far. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Further... Having read through this article a couple of times now, I have to admit I found parts of it hard going in terms of prose. I think there are probably a few reasons for this:
• A) There are a lot of minor places mentioned, few of which I suspect me (or a typical reader) will be able to place. For example, In the "Ottoman front line", the article describes how "Bakr Ridge in the Judean Hills was situated to the west of the salient at El Musallabe"; this follows on from a lot of other locations in the same paragraph. I simply can't work out from context where the Bakr Ridge is, other than it being in the Judean Hills. When the Bakr Ridge is finally taken, we then learn that Grant Ridge, Baghalat and Chalk Ridge are taken; again, I don't know where these are. The result was that I kept on flicking back and forth with "search in page", trying to understand the progress of the battle. My advice would be to take a careful look at when these sorts of details are necessary for the story, and when they're preventing the reader "from seeing the wood for the trees".
  • Have moved "Detail of Falls Sketch No. 24" which shows the position of Bakr Ridge from the beginning of the Background section to adjacent to the section you describe. Does this help? --Rskp (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• B) In some cases, I'm not sure the precise timings aren't distracting from the story. e.g. "At 20:30 Meldrum's Force commanded by Brigadier-General W. Meldrum..." There's a lot of detail here anyway, but then three sets of precise times adds further information the reader needs to take in. I suspect (but happy to be challenged) that the reader simply needs to know this happened in the evening of that day.
  • The precise timings have been relaxed somewhat but it is germane to know how quickly the force got organised, got moving and got to where they were supposed to be. --Rskp (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• C) Some bits could be trimmed slightly, to focus the reader on the main events. See "Capture of Kh Fasail on 21 September", for example, and the bit about "with patrols pushed towards Jisr ed Damieh and Umm esh Shert" - I think this detail about a minor manouvre distracts from the overall story line.
  • The battle of Jisr ed Damieh and the attack Umm esh Shert are both described subsequently in detail in the next two sections. This first mention describes the moves towards these places.

Similarly "The brigade then advanced south east along the road from the bridge 8 miles (13 km) across the Jordan Valley to the foothills of Moab, with patrols to the east and north, to make the 3,000 feet (910 m) climb to Es Salt." - the details of the patrols dilutes the key information - their advance into the foothills and the climb to Es Salt.

• • The flank patrols were guarding the main force as it advanced into enemy territory. Its just describing the deployment of a mounted force on the move. --Rskp (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• This sort of thing is always a balancing act, and I'd be interested in your thoughts. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• • The article reflects as much of the factual information available in the secondary sources as it takes for me to understand what is going on. At that point I hope readers will also understand the dynamics of the operations. I am mindful that these operations occurred in a relatively unknown theatre of WWI, when technology was vastly different even from the Western Front, let alone our computer age. All these factors have encouraged more detail, rather than less. --Rskp (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

• Appears neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Stable. 07:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

Checked. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)