I am nominating this article for A-Class review because (a.) I think it fully covers the main actions of the WWI Battle of Delville Wood, (b.) It contains detailed maps defining how the battle progressed, (c.) It contains a full oob for both Allied and German forces, (d.) It has undergone peer review and all recommendations have been incorporated into the article and (e.) lastly, according to my own evaluation, it meets the factual and style pre-requisites for an A Class article.
Also, with Remembrance Day approaching on 11 November, Delville Wood is highly representative of the losses and suffering experienced by both sides - for which this day is remembered. Depending on the opinion of the reviewers / editors, it could be considered for FAC for that date. Farawayman (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Dabs/external links check out; alt text is present
Action taken: I think we can accept this as a reliable source. Refer Commons Hansard of 9 Jun 2005 – section titled "Military Records." http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo050609/text/50609w08.htm All WWI servicemen's index cards are already held by the archives on micro film. Parliament approved all physical service cards for males on the national medal roll for WWI to be transferred to the Western Front Association for safekeeping. I think this substantiates their pedigree. Farawayman (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Action taken: I used this reference because I was looking for a citation to support the statement that four VC's had been awarded during the battle. I concur on the questionable reliability issue. In have thus removed the above link and used the UK National Archive VC Register, including four separate references - a unique one for each recipient. Farawayman (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Action Taken: I concur that this website could be considred to be of doubtful reliability. I have found similar data in Thomas, Nigel (2004). The German Army in World War I (3) 1917-1918 (Men at Arms Series, 1st ed.). Oxford: Osprey Publishing. ISBN1 84176 567 8 (Pg. 43) and have replaced the website citation with this reference. Farawayman (talk) 09:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Should there be a page number for refs like "Sheldon (2005) Appendix 4"?
Action taken: Page numbers added to references for Appendix IV. Farawayman (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Is the bold print in the "References" section necessary?
Action taken: The bold font is system generated by using the "Volume" field in the Cite template. I agree that it looks messy. I have changed it by removing the information from the volume field and adding it into the title. Farawayman (talk) 05:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Action taken: On pg 323 Liddell Hart speaks of 7th and 21st Div of XV Corps who were to cover the left. He lists the commanders...of the Divisions! I recorded the Div commander's name (21 Div) and not the Corps Commander. Careless mistake on my part! Article corrected. On this one, the WFA is actually incorrect (maybe a typo) - it was Lt-Gen Henry S. Horne not Home! Liddell Hart (1970) re-confirms Horne on pg 317, The UK Official History (Miles 1938) confirms on pg. 5 as does Hart (2006) pg. 175. Well spotted and thanks. Farawayman (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Support: I believe this article meets A class standard. One issue I see is the use of endashes where normal hyphens should be used. I've fixed some, but there are more I believe. This shouldn't prevent A class, but I think it would be an issue at FA (albeit seemingly minor). If someone else can take a look and try to fix, that would be great as it is a bit laborious, so I didn't get through all of them. Anyway, good work on the article. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Please consider adding captions to all images, at least the title of the images themselves. I recommend submitting them to WP:Graphic Lab for cleanup and contrast enhancement. If nobody is biting User:Durova is the best at historical image reconstructions, she will at least be able to point you to someone else good and if she thinks they are good enough material you may have found some Featured Pics.
Action taken 1: I have asked User:Durova to assist, if she is unable to do so because of time constraints - I will re-direct the call for assistance to the Graphic Lab. Request is here. — Farawayman (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Action taken 2: Captions added to all images. — Farawayman (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The excellent maps (I would niggle that they should be SVG, but they are so good) of the engagement lose their impact in that they are too small to be visible from the main article, but the description of the images is not complete enough to figure things out. I recommend fixing both problems. Good image descriptions are really, really good.
Action Taken 1: Map sizes increased and re-arranged to make map content more visible and adjacent to appropriate text. — Farawayman (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Action Taken 2: I think that by placing the map next to the text relating to that day's actions (the maps were all grouped together in one map gallery) makes them more understandable, as the map and text are now together. I will add more map details if required, but I want to try to steer away from adding narrative type text into the maps. — Farawayman (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
"On the Western Front, units were normally considered to be incapable of combat if their casualty levels had reached 30% and they were withdrawn once this level had been attained. The South African Brigade suffered 85% losses amongst officers and 80% amongst other ranks, equating to a total loss rate of 80.4%"" This is the most interesting fact on the page, yet it is the fourth last sentence of the article. I recommend making it somewhat more visible. In contrast, there is an inordinate amount of coverage to the exaggeration of casualties. Is this especially interesting or important that it deserves mention in the intro, or is it a soapbox issue? Dhatfield (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Action Taken: Having re-read the sections concerned, I agree! Issue of controversy of losses has been removed from the lead and replaced by facts relating 80% losses having been sustained. Section regarding casualty argument "toned down" as well. Farawayman (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Needs a copy-edit. While the majority of the article is mostly OK, it could all use some looking at by someone else and the Losses section is in particular need of help.
You mention the South African casualties in the lead but then completely ignore them in the article except to discuss how many possible casualties there actually were. Please elaborate in the body on the effect on South Africa and other South African troops in the war.
Also, you mention the memorial in the lead and have an infobox for it at the end, but no textual coverage. The evolution of the battlefield and construction of the memorial need to be discussed.
Action Taken: There is a page dedicated to the memorial and cemetery here. I have thus removed the memorial infobox and added a "see also" link as well as a link in the lead text to the appropriate page. Farawayman (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
There is quite of a bit of extra italicization that doesn't make sense to me. "Meat-grinder" in the Backgorund section, German regiments throughout, Happy Valley in the Relief section etc.
Break in and initial occupation section, "holding the wood was going to be extremely difficult!" The exclamation point feels a little unencyclopedic and elementary-school-report to me.
First attempt at clearing the wood section. The text is sandwiched between the map and the image, which is strongly discouraged, and the image is covering up some of the text in my browser view.
In the lead, the losses of the South Africans are played as a huge deal - that they continued fighting with 80% losses, etc. However, in the losses section, it seems to be downplayed by saying it is often overstated, and the 80% mark is never mentioned. First, the lead shouldn't contain information that is not included in the body, and second, the two sections seem to be at odds with one another.
The See also section is generally its own section, coming before the References and notes section. Also, the three middle links are external links, and should have their own section, after the References and notes section, and the links should be linked through the titles, not as bare links in the in-line notes section.
I look forward to supporting this article for A-class, once these issues and those of the other reviewers have been dealt with. Dana boomer (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.