Talk:Battle of Mughar Ridge/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk) 07:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a read through the article later. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the review's complete. Just minor copyediting to cover and a query on the official history's verdict on mounted troops. I really enjoyed the details, such as the importance of the steam-powered pumps to rapidly moving and watering the cavalry, by the way! Hchc2009 (talk) 05:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The steam pump would have made an enormous difference because without it they would have been reduced to buckets one at a time. I'm constantly surprised and amazed at the technological distance between us and then. --Rskp (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There's an excellent book on the technology used by the British Army in the First World War that I've got somewhere - the difference and similarities are fascinating. Article's passed review - nicely done.Hchc2009 (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. --Rskp (talk) 04:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

Lead:

• Fine for length - you just need to spell out the obvious bits a little bit more for the casual reader:
• "Strong Ottoman Army positions had successfully held out against British Empire forces from Gaza to the foothills of the Judean Hills for a week after the victory at Beersheba." As written, this is unclear if the Gaza and Judean hills are the Ottoman or the British Empire forces' positions. If you went for "Strong Ottoman Army positions, from Gaza to the foothills of the Judean Hills, had successfully..." (or a variant thereof) it would be impossible to misread.

Thank you. --Rskp (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• "the victory at Beersheba" - as this is the first time its come up in the article, you'll need to say "the British victory" or similar to explain.

Done. --Rskp (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• "a cavalry charge at Huj captured guns" - probably needs an adjective, e.g. "a British cavalry charge" or "Ottoman guns".

Done. --Rskp (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Egyptian Expeditionary Forces attacked the 8th Army on an extended front" - again, worth spelling out which side is which - e.g. "the Ottoman 8th Army". Should it be it "The Egyptian Expeditionary Force", by the way?

Thanks. Done. --Rskp (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• "an Ottoman attack was held" - in this context it is unclear if this means the Ottomans holding an attack, or an Ottoman attack being blocked.

Thanks. Done. --Rskp (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• The other bit that's missing in the lead is that you start by clearly noting that the battle occurred on the 13th; in the third paragraph of the lead, though, you don't actually state what happened on the 13th (you give a description of the 10 to 14 November). It'd be worth reintroducing the 13 Nov into that paragraph so that it is easy to skim down the lead and find the sentence or two about the battle itself.

It got lost. Thanks. --Rskp (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Background:

• "It was the beginning of the last month of autumn" - Suggest "The battle of Mughar Ridge occurred at the start of November, the beginning of the last month of autumn..." - this will be the first section the reader starts on, so the "It" pronoun will be unclear otherwise.

Rehashed this. --Rskp (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Its 24th Infantry Division..." It's unclear if the "Its" in this context is referring to the 7th Army or the III Corps. You could go for "The III Corps' 24th Infantry..." for example to make it clearer.

Done. --Rskp (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• "rearguards" - not a formal requirement for the review, but you might want to consider whether you could expand this to be "rearguard units" in the article. The reason I suggest this is that I suspect we're both familiar with the term (which is quite correct as written), but a non-specialist would probably write "rearguard unit" rather than just "rearguard". Just a thought.

Thanks. Done. --Rskp (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Prelude:

• "war materiel" - can materiel ever be anything other than war materiel? I only ask because I can't think when I've seen the term used outside of a conflict.

Done. --Rskp (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• "and the ammunition depot there exploded" - I'd suggest "detonating the ammunition depot", since presumably the bombing was the cause of the explosion!

Done. --Rskp (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• "an difficult retreat" - "a", not "an"

Done. --Rskp (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• "towards which the 2nd Light Horse Brigade advanced capturing" I tend to overuse commas, but this might read more easily as "towards which the 2nd Light Horse Brigade advanced, capturing"

Done. --Rskp (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• "five burnt aircraft were captured" - "burnt out aircraft"?

Done. --Rskp (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• "This task was performed by "B" echelon horse or mule drawn wagons of brigades' transport and supply sections forming an improvised Anzac Divisional Train." I found this hard to read; it probably needs a comma somewhere, alternatively it could be "This task was performed by "B" echelon wagons of brigades' transport and supply sections forming an improvised Anzac Divisional Train." (I couldn't think what else could pull the wagons other than horses or mules?)

Agree. Done. --Rskp (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Railhead was being pushed" - "The railhead..."

Done. --Rskp (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• "The 20 miles (32 km) defensive line chosen by the Ottoman commanders to rally their 20,000-strong army and stop the invasion, was also designed to protect the Jaffa to Jerusalem railway and the threatened Junction Station." - needs a paired comma after "defensive line"

Done. --Rskp (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• " three separate columns (of all arms) " - for the non-specialist reader you'll want to explain (or link) what "all arms" are.

I'm not sure about this - 'all arms' link is to 'combined arms' meaning airforce, navy etc. I think this means infantry and mounted units but could include machine gun companies and artillery. --Rskp (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Battle:

• "Captures included two field guns and 14 machine-guns." - "Two field guns and 14 machine-guns were captured." would read more naturally to a non-specialist.

Agree. Done.--Rskp (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Prisoners included 18 officers and 1,078 other ranks while hundreds of dead Ottoman soldiers were counted; amounting to more than 2,000." - "the prisoners and dead amounted to..." might read better.

Have simplified it along the lines you suggest. --Rskp (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Lewis gun" - worth linking the first time you mention it.

Done. --Rskp (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• " Accomplished during an intense engagement, the attacking power of the mounted rifle arm against a strongly entrenched infantry position was comprehensively proven" - I found this odd, although clearly Powles thought it to be the case. I'd be inclined to note that this was the official verdict (e.g. "The official New Zealand historians of the battle concluded in 1922 that..."), rather than a modern historical judgement, as I can't believe that many modern military historians now believe that mounted cavalry are the typically the best forces to use against entrenched infantry. Be interested in your thoughts.

Agree. Your suggestion added. It wasn't mounted cavalry they didn't stay mounted they got off and fought as infantry then got back on and galloped to the next lot and attacked them. It was the speed and smooth precision work of horse holders, holding the mounts out of the line of fire while the attackers did their job then bringing the horses quickly up to the attacking riflemen, which succeeded on the day. May be a modern equivalent could be use of motor bikes??? --Rskp (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

• Happy.Hchc2009 (talk)

(b) 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;

• Happy.Hchc2009 (talk) 05:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.

• Seems fine. The article makes use of the official war diaries of the units concerned, but not in a way that suggests OR under the guidelines, and the origins of the statements are clearly drawn out in the references.Hchc2009 (talk) 05:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

• The Background section could do with explaining the terrain and weather a little bit more - only in a sentence or two, but was the area hot in November? Dry? Hilly? etc. Just something to paint a bit of a picture to explain what happens later. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the time, climate and geography impinge on the viability of these engagements. I've extrapolated from a reference in Battle of Jerusalem and placed it in the first para of the Background. --Rskp (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• Fine. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

• The nature of the sources are heavily weighted numerically towards the British side, but the language and analysis doesn't appear to be biased. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Checks out as Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

• Checked and look good. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• Check and looks good. I'd be inclined to wikilink some of the captions, but that's a matter of personal style rather than a GAR requirement. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the feedback. That's a great idea adding wikilinks to captions. :) --Rskp (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)