Talk:Battle of Magdhaba/GA2
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 02:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Reviewing. I will check the War Diaries. Have copies here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- A. Prose quality:
"However, the battle of attrition on the Somme, coupled with a change of Britain's Prime Minister; David Lloyd George succeeded Herbert Asquith on 7 December, destabilised the status quo sufficiently to bring about a policy reversal" The semicoln is not right here. Re-word.
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- Background:
Link "Anzac Mounted Division" (I know it is in the lead, but the two should stand separate.)- Unlink "Australian".
- "Henry G. Chauvel" (US form) should be "Harry Chauvel"
- "Major General" should link to "Major General (Australia)" here
- "General Archibald Murray" "General" should link to "General (United Kingdom)" and it should be "Sir Archibald"
- Background:
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
"Lieutenant General Phillip Chetwode" Sir Phillip
"As a Major General, Chetwode had been in command" Major general should not be capitised here, as it is not part of a title.
- Prelude:
"They moved out without their 2nd Light Horse Brigade" should be "the" instead of "their"
- Prelude:
- Aftermath
- "Lieutenant Colonel Granville" -> "Lieutenant Colonel C. H. Granville"
- Aftermath
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- Water. Before the pipeline was in operation, water was hauled on the rattler. However, this was also a major consumer of water, being a steam train.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
There's a "[not in citation given]" tag after fn 42
- I'm not sure why this tag was added, because the information regarding Chetwode's arrival and his organising of the supplies which made the mounted division more mobile is all contained in the reference. Perhaps its the assumption that this information could not have been known to von Kressenstein. Or, maybe its the page number, which is page 3 of Appendix No. 24 22 December 1916 09:10 but shows as page 31 of the online publication. --Rskp (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- A. Major aspects:
"The Egyptian and Ottoman Frontier" Technically speaking, Egypt was just a British protectorate, and still part of the Ottoman Empire, so there was no such frontier.
- B. Focused:
- B. Focused:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail: