Talk:Battle of Hill 60 (Gallipoli)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Hill 60 (Gallipoli) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Turkey Mid‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian / South Pacific / British / European / Indian / Ottoman / South Asia / World War I B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Indian military history task force
	Ottoman military history task force
	South Asian military history task force
	World War I task force

Australia: Military history B‑class Low‑importance

	Australia portal Battle of Hill 60 (Gallipoli) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

New Zealand Mid‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Irish casualties

Apparently Hill 16 was actually called 'Hill 60' after the Battle of Hill 60. What, therefore, is the Irish connection to this battle? Thanks. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

I have removed the note "A full list of these men is available at http://alh-research.tripod.com/Light_Horse/index.blog?topic_id=1104120 9th LHR and Hill 60", because it links to the Nek battle in Gallipoli, in which the 9th weren' t particularly involved. Bean says that they were "relatively speaking, intact, not having taken part in the actual charge at the Nek...", (p754). I also modified the ambiguous wording which indicated the the 9th fought at the Nek, even though it was their parent, the 3rd Light Horse Brigade that did so. Also removed "The result was Reynell's death and that of 27 men" - unless/until a suitable source can be found. There's a source for for Reynell's death (Bean|1924|p=758) but not for the 27. In any case, over a thousand died there so why single out Reynell? --Bye for now (PTT) 13:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

G'day, as per the request at WP:MHA I have reassessed this article. Good work with adding all of the citations. I think that it is close to a B-class assessment, but think that the lead and aftermath sections should be expanded just a little bit further. For instance, in the lead I think a couple more sentences are required to quickly summarise the course of the battle, while in the aftermath I think a couple more sentences are required to outline whether the position remained in Ottoman hands until the end of the campaign in December 1915, and/or if there was any further fighting around the position. Anyway, great work so far and thanks for your efforts to improve the article. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I'll see what else I can add tomorrow. Cheers, --Bye for now (PTT) 21:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rupert: I've merged my info in with your changes in the aftermath section as best I could - but probably worth checking. Here's an interesting quote: According to historian Robert Rhodes James: "For connoisseurs of military futility, valour, incompetence and determination, the attacks on Hill 60 are in a class of their own"^[1] --Bye for now (PTT) 15:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I've made a couple of minor tweaks which are focused more on style than substance, to bring the article closer to the Manual of Style, but otherwise what you added looks great. Well done and thanks for your efforts. When you are ready, I'd suggest asking for a reassessment at WP:MHA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added a couple of flourishes, since I did the Hill 60 (Western Front) revision. Delighted to see its twin improved to B class.Keith-264 (talk) 09:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look in OH Gallipoli II for casualty data on the Turks but nothing doing I'm afraid.Keith-264 (talk) 10:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware when working on this that the sources are a bit one-sided, though I still think the article has come out neutral. One thing still to work on is https://archive.org/details/fnfjahretrke00limauoft (Five years in Turkey) by a German cavalry general. There maybe something in there of use - though my German is very rusty. Cheers, --Bye for now (PTT) 10:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of an occupational hazard; the Canadian translation of the German OH for 1915 only alludes to Gallipoli and Travers, who took pains to refer to Turkish and German sources, is very thin on Hill 60. [2] has a German version of the OH. I have gleaned a few details at times by using the Bing translation programme and a dictionary but it takes ages.Keith-264 (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting stuff in there though, such as: In June, the German ambassador was advising that theTurkish artillery was using up ammunition faster than Turkey could produce it and that - unless Romania would agree to transit for ammunition - they probably wouldn't be able to hold onto the Dardanelles.^[2] --Bye for now (PTT) 13:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's just about possible to get the gist of it via Google translate^[3] word-salad.

References

[1] ttp://books.google.es/books?id=KbF3EElXNFsC&q=Rhodes#v=snippet&q=Rhodes&f=false

[2] ttp://digi.landesbibliothek.at/viewer/!image/AC01859921/620/-/

[3] [1]

[1]

[2]

[3]