Talk:Battle of Rafa/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 05:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Good Article Checklist

  • Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; 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; and it contains no original research.
  • Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
  • Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  • Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose (Symbol comment 2.png) 1b. MoS (Symbol comment 2.png) 2a. ref layout (Symbol comment 2.png) 2b. cites WP:RS (Symbol comment 2.png) 2c. no WP:OR (Symbol comment 2.png) 3a. broadness (Symbol comment 2.png)
3b. focus (Symbol comment 2.png) 4. neutral (Symbol comment 2.png) 5. stable (Symbol comment 2.png) 6a. free or tagged images (Symbol comment 2.png) 6b. pics relevant (Symbol comment 2.png)
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked Symbol comment 2.png are unassessed

  • Disambig links:No issues
  • Reference check: No issues

Comments: This article has several issues. It fails WP:LEAD. Several of the images are of questionable relevance, blurry and undescript, they add little if anything to the article. Words to watch and possible OR on pieces like: "probably the powerful new Taube Albatros D.III," - this is speculation. The article needs a copy edit for other issues like "On 19 January aerial reconnaissance found the Ottoman Army had evacuated El Kossaima and the strength of the main desert base at Hafir el Auja had decreased." This needs a citation saying "who" thought that, " However, it was thought that Ottoman garrisons would continue to hold onto the Nekhl area in the center of the Sinai Peninsula, including the villages of Bir el Hassana, Gebel Helal, Gebel Yelleg and Gebel el Heitan." From word choice "However, on 17 February when the columns were approaching the area, reconnaissance aircraft found the Ottoman garrisons had retired." And lack of inline citations per MINREF for "To address the problem of Ottoman Army units in the rear of the advancing EEF, a Raid on Nekhl was carried out by two columns of light horse and yeomanry. The two columns moved out from Serapeum, near Ismailia on the Suez Canal, with three aircraft in support to attack Nekhl 60 miles (97 km) to the east." And that's just one paragraph. Entire quotes from "R. M. Downes" that should be paraphrased as they add nothing of context that could not be summarized in paraphrasing. More word choice with "Chauvel had reconnoitred the El Magruntein". Final assaults also has citation and specific and copy editing issues.

Plenty of sections have several problems all in one: "These guns were also well positioned to provide cover if pressure by the Ottoman reinforcements from Khan Yunus and Shellal proved too strong for the two troops of Wellingtons, or if the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade was forced to retire to the coast."

  • "At about 16:30 the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade launched its final assault on the central redoubt from the north-west, the north and the north-east, without artillery support. Instead, they made determined use of machine guns on the firing line, crossing fire to get better targets, and cooperating with the machine-guns of the 1st Light Horse Brigade to cover the advance to within 400 yards (370 m) of the main Ottoman position."
  • "Just after 08:00 the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade circled northwards, moving into position for their attacks on the C4 and C5 groups of redoubts and trenches, while the 1st Light Horse Brigade moved into position to attack the C3, C2 and C1 groups. After these objectives were captured, the two brigades were to attack the central redoubt. "
  • " By 12:15 the Wellington Mounted Rifles Regiment had come up to the front line, between the Canterburys on the right, and the Aucklanders on the left, within 600 yards (550 m) of El Magruntein, while the 2nd Battalion of the Camel Brigade advanced to extend the line held by their 1st Battalion."

All these issues need to be cited and plenty more, because they are very specific claims. Given the situation, the article needs someone who has these sources to verify and address the issues and some of it does seem to be OR. I'll leave this up for awhile incase someone can fix it, but otherwise I'll have to fail it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that ChrisGualtieri. There is a question about the subject block which makes it impossible for me to attempt to edit the article at the moment, but I've had a look at your comments.
  • Not sure why the lead is a problem - could you indicate what they are?
  • Yes, the Main Ottoman defensive position and trenches and the Map of deployments for Rafah attack which are a bit dim could be cut.
  • "On 19 January aerial reconnaissance found the Ottoman Army had evacuated El Kossaima and the strength of the main desert base at Hafir el Auja had decreased." This was apparent from the air during an aerial reconnaissance and the source does not provide any further detail.
  • GHQ, EEF "thought that Ottoman garrisons would continue to hold onto the Nekhl area in the center of the Sinai Peninsula, including the villages of Bir el Hassana, Gebel Helal, Gebel Yelleg and Gebel el Heitan." I would add this but at the moment, not sure if I'm allowed.
  • The citation for the information is provided at the end of the paragraph; Cutlack 1941, pp. 53–55. Do you want the source copied? I agree this is a weak last paragraph. The link with the preceding paragraph needs to be made clearer, but again, at the moment I'm not sure I am allowed.
  • The two Downes quotes, about the handling of the wounded is tricky as he is the only source and there is so much detail.
  • There should be a comma before "Chauvel had reconnoitred the El Magruntein ..."
  • There needs to be a comma after "provide cover" as the guns' position was dual purpose.
  • The descriptions in the Battle, Final Assault and Attack begins sections, reflect information provided by the sources, so it is difficult to know how these could be changed. There is no original research here.

The citations are at the end of the paragraphs but they could be added at the end of the sentences, if required. --Rskp (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do not comment on this again, see the other GAN for my detailing as to why. This is in the hands of Milhist and editors like Demiurge1000 for obvious reasons. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Gday - I made a couple of edits to (hopefully) address one or two of the issues in the final paragraph. Unfortunately I don't have access to very many of these sources though so can't do much more. Pls let me know if you think this is sufficient though [1] or if anything more is req'd for this specific point. Anotherclown (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay, but I think some of the issues still remain, with the lengthy quotes and some unspecific detail. Its not truly bad, but I don't think its yet at GA criteria with such a reliance on that padding. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)