Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Brevity

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:41, 27 January 2009 [1].

Operation Brevity

edit
Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc
previous FAC (04:05, 23 August 2008)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I really believe it now meets all FA criteria.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a preliminary scan:

  1. The article needs supporting maps! Its very hard to piece together the war details without maps that chalk out the strategies, frontlines and locations.
  2. Preferably SVG maps. (JPEG one is bad)
    What exactlly is wrong with the JPEG one? It displays find to me and shows no JPEG corruption (shouldnt since i snapped it up via photoshop).--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If the File:BattleaxeContestedArea.JPG is sourced, I can throw up an SVG version almost instantaneously (seems simple enough). Jappalang (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I still have the original photoshop image for the second map that i could send to you to be SVG'd if you wished. As for the one at the top of the article, what do you mean by sourced? IT doesnt show any formation movements but it does look fairly accurate of the area.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I was talking about SVGing the first one. Anyway, Fort Cappuzo, the barracks, Pt. 206 and 208, the frontier wire, and border are not readily verifiable. Hence, a source (either a picture, or text that describe the cartographical placements) would make it easier to ensure the locations are a good representation of where they are supposed to be. It is just like what you did for File:Operation Brevity.jpg. Jappalang (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah i see what you mean. Unfortually the editor who created that piece of work dropped off the project during summer just gone, which is very unfortunate. :( --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are in luck. I found Tobruk 1941. The frontier wire and a far off southern town have to be removed, but everything else is verifiable with respect to this book, Google Map and your sourced File:Operation Brevity.jpg. File:BattleaxeContestedArea.svg is now up on display in the article. Jappalang (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. All those times need to be attributed to a timezone
    I can double check my sources but i dont think they mentioned one.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have checked my sources (Thomas Jentz and ISO Playfair) and cannot see anything regarding what timezone was in use. I know however that British Double Summer Time was in use within the UK but am unsure on how that effected Anglo-CW/Imperial/Allied operations elsewhere in the world.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Similarly, all mile units need a km equivalent. I thought I saw some without equivalents.
    Addressed--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The coordinates would also be good
    Sorted - co-ords are roughly where Fort Capuzzo is.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. In recompense -- comma needed
  7. How could they be taken by surprise "nevertheless took them by surprise" if they knew it was coming? What were they surprised about?
    I've made some minor prose tweaks that should hopefully address your last two. EyeSerenetalk 18:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replies
Am afaid as far as my knowledge on the subject goes, your not going to find a map with movement markers on it for Brevity. I have checked mulptiple sources and have not been able to find any - to make one myself would be taking best guesses and would probably be compeltely wrong for the chaps out on the desert flank and the German moves and counterattacks.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this any good as a basis for a self-made map? I don't know if it would meet WP:RS though. EyeSerenetalk 10:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • About coordinates: Meant the coordinates of the battle area in the infobox. Need not be overly precise.
Addressed--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

=Nichalp «Talk»= 18:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References--

  • See my comments on article talk page. I can never figure out how to edit these FAs properly. --KP Botany (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will do.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of the faint Egypt-Libya text along border on the map, the words Egypt and Libya in bold would be more eye catching
  • The source map may not be reliable, can be considered as a source if the movement markers tally with the text. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume you are talking about File:BattleaxeContestedArea.svg. Note that as I took File:BattleaxeContestedArea.JPG as the base (hence I have to attribute to this work as it is CC) but verified the work with the three sources I mentioned (removing what could not be verified). There is no movement markers in the SVG (it is only geographical details), hence I do not understand what is the concern here. I have replaced the smaller border text with larger country names on the two sides. Jappalang (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Nichalp may be referring to my post above, suggesting this map. EyeSerenetalk 13:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm, if he is referring to an ops map, would this qualify? The site (http://www.ian.a.paterson.btinternet.co.uk/) is recommended for the history of a participating unit by the official Desert Rat Memorial Web Site.[2] Jappalang (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry i havent been available that much this weekend to help relsove the final few issues. Anyway, this map is no good as it is for Operation Battleaxe, not Brevity. The 4th Indian Division, 7RTR nor the entire wieght of the two German divisions took part in Brevity, the focus of fighting around Hafid ridge was also a feature of Battleaxe. The map linked to above by EyeSerene does give the general idea of the operation although not to specific.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hmm, I would still like to know if the map on Paterson's site is reliable, since it would help expand the details for File:BattleaxeContestedArea.svg (tracks and missing cities). Jappalang (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ill upload a photo of a map shown in Jentz' book later on to my photobucket account, one will see patersons map does basically match up. Although it shows Hafia ridge, Jentz' map doesnt - the later also shows a further settlement that Patersons doesnt. So i think Jentz' would confirm that Patersons is reliable.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; I looked over the article, and made an edit on the lead; but, in general, that's the only thing I could think of improving! I also did some edits that had to do with MoS (spelling out single digits, for example). Personally, I'm not a fan of the footnotes style; you have to read the footnote, and then click on the citation which cites the footnote. It doesn't make much sense to me. Including the footnotes as citations, on the other hand, as "notes" (like they tend to do in books) seems simpler and easier to follow. Otherwise, I'm going to be going everywhere before eventually going back to where I dropped reading. I also think that, although I will leave someone with better judgment to make the call, that the fair use image is not going to fly; it's not really necessary to illustrate the topic, and there are other images that are public domain. Seeing what the fort looks like did not really increase my understanding of the article. The same goes for File:Halfaya pass.jpg. JonCatalán(Talk) 23:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Halfaya pass.jpg is actually in the public domain; it was created in 1943–44, thus falling under the "works produced before 1945 only has 50 years copyright". I have changed the image's licensing to as such. Note also that the source link for File:Fort Capuzzo.jpg is dead. Jappalang (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3

  • All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:IWM-E-5366-Cruiser-IV-and-Matilda-Egypt-19410905.jpg - This image is hosted at Commons, which means that it needs to be in the PD in both Britain and the US. Please explain why it is in the PD in the US. If it is only in the PD in Britain, it should be hosted at Wikipedia and deleted from Commons.
    • Wikipedia:Public domain#Country-specific rules: If the work was in the public domain in the country of origin as of January 1, 1996, it is in the public domain in the U.S. (Even if it was published after 1923, but only if no copyright had been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.) It is public domain in 1991 (1941 + 50 per http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/crown-a.pdf), hence PD in US. Jappalang (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This information needs to be on the image description page. Currently, only the British PD info is. Awadewit (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Am a tad confused, there is an email which acompanys the Crown copyright template. The email states:
        • "Thank you for your email enquiry dated May 23rd, 2005. Crown copyright protection in published material lasts for fifty years from the end of the year in which the material was first published. Therefore, to use your example, material published in 1954, and any Crown copyright material published before that date, would now be out of copyright, and may be freely reproduced throughout the world."
        • So surely there shouldnt be need for additional copyright templates?
  • File:PanzersJune1941.jpg - This image is hosted at Commons, which means that it needs to be in the PD in both Britain and the US. Please explain why it is in the PD in the US. If it is only in the PD in Britain, it should be hosted at Wikipedia and deleted from Commons.
    • Per above, it is public domain in 1991 (1941 + 50), hence PD in US. Jappalang (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Fort Capuzzo.jpg - I am unconvinced that there is not a free version of this image available. Note that the fair use rationale says "One of the few photos available on the internet of the fort". And? What kinds of photographs do printed histories of this event have, for example? Also, the source link for this image is broken, so we cannot verify it. Finally, the purpose of use is "To provide visual reference of what Fort Capuzzo looks like". Generally, we need a reason much stronger than mere illustration to include a non-free image in an article.
    • You were right, i had not looked hard enough. A free photo of Fort Capuzzo has been found and uploaded in its place.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully we can clear up these issues quickly. Awadewit (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest that this article would benefit from a "newspaper" style introduction, in which the first sentence summarizes the story, the first paragraph retells it with more information, the rest of the lead retells it with more information yet, and the body gives all the details. For example, the first sentence could be something like, Operation Brevity was a limited offensive conducted by the British in north Africa in May 1941, which was aborted after one day because of a failure to make progress. Looie496 (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I've tweaked the lead a little - I'm not convinced that the story needs telling three times in the lead, but certainly the first paragraph was incomplete. I used paras two and three to expand on the first; hopefully the balance has now improved. EyeSerenetalk 11:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support*Object for now. This lead seems to bog down in details, especially the third paragraph. The lead should be an intro and summary, not a listing of moves in the battle. This is also probably why you felt the need to put so many refs in the lead. A well done lead will need few if any refs as it's a summary of what is in the body. Leads can have refs but when I see more then 3 or so, that's a signal of one of two things:
  1. The lead is not a summary and has details that are not repeated in the body
  2. The lead is a summary that is expounded upon in the body and has refs that it really doesn't need

For example, this lead does not expound upon the importance and aftermath of this battle at if I stop at the lead, I think wonder about it. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that (and I agree!). I think starting from scratch might help, so I'll do that as soon as I get the chance. EyeSerenetalk 08:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've removed all the duplicated cites and tried to tighten things up. Better? EyeSerenetalk 13:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much, support now. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Operation_Brevity&oldid=1088204699"