Talk:Capture of Le Quesnoy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 04:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

G'day, I will review this article over the weekend. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments/suggestions

• G'day, very interesting article. Good work so far. I have the following suggestions for improvement/questions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• the lead should be expanded to summarise the whole article: I'd suggest that two paragraphs would probably be acceptable  Done
• do we know the German units that held the town? (I suggest adding this to the "Le Quesnoy" section, along with details about the size of the garrison which are in the infobox but do not appear elsewhere)

• Unfortunately nothing in the sources to indicate the German unit or its (or the town) commandant. Have worked in the garrison strength into the prelude section.

• in the infobox the figure of 976 appears for the NZ strength but it doesn't appear to be in the body of the article, nor does it appear to be cited

• On reflection, 976 can't be right for the strength of the Rifle Brigade as it would have effectively suffered 50% casualties during the battle and the official history portrays losses as relatively minor. I think a brigade normally has about 3,000 men at full strength. I've tried to source a figure for NZ strength but haven't been able to do so.

• do we know the German commander's name? If so, could this be added to the infobox?

• As above, not known unfortunately.

• I suggest adding a units field to the infobox  Done
• watch how you use endashes v. hyphens. For instance, "machine–guns" should just be a hyphen, same with "south–east", but  Done
• times should be prsented with a non-breaking space, e.g "5:30 am"  Done
• link terms like "platoon", "company", "battalion", "brigade", "division", "mortar", "howitzer" etc. on first mention  Done
• if possible, I suggest cropping the frame out of the image in the infobox. Same also for the one with the caption "Members of the New Zealand Rifle Brigade operating..."  Done
• this sounds awkward to me: "The IV Corps..." I'd probably delete the definate article for corps designations  Done
• suggest linking Battle of Amiens (1918) in the Prelude section  Done
• is there a link for the "1st Infantry Brigade"? And also, can we say who commanded it?  Done
• per the MOS, quote marks should be double: e.g. 'Blue Line', should be "Blue Line". Same same for the 'Green Line'  Done
• I found this sentence a little confusing: "The IV Corps with the New Zealand Division and the 37th Division was to surround Le Quesnoy, the 37th Division maintaining the link with V Corps to the south and the New Zealanders were flanked to the north by the 62nd Division of VI Corps, which moved south to shorted the New Zealand front".  Done
• "the Mormal Forest" or just "Mormal Forest"?  Done
• do we know the full name for "Lieutenant Colonel Jardine"?  Done
• "Averill saw off two Germans" -- this sounds a little too colloquial  Done
• the first sentence of the Aftermath section is a little awkward ("which was the most successful day" seems too far removed from "4 November"). I had a go at rewording, but didn't want to change too much. Could you have a go at rewording?  Done
• some of the figures in the Aftermath seem contradictory. For instance "711 from within Le Quesnoy" compared with "in the town were 1,243 prisoners"  Done
• the Rifle Brigade's casualties and German casualties seem remarkably similar "43 killed and 250 men wounded" v. "43 killed and 251 men wounded" --> are we sure these are accurate?  Done
• I suggest splitting the paragraph in the Afthermath section into two, with the second probably starting at "An advance into the Mormal Forest..."  Done
• is there a link for "2nd Infantry Brigade"?  Done
• was there any air support used during the attack?

• No mention in sources.

• "File:Walls of Le Quesnoy, 1918.jpg" probably needs a US licencing tag (I think PD-US-1996 would work)  Done
• same as above for "File:NZ soldiers at the front near Le Quesnoy, 1918.jpg"  Done
• "File:Le Quesnoy New Zealand monument.JPG": the summary on this file probably needs expanding to include more details about what the image is of (currently it just says "Taken by me"). Also, I think it needs a freedom of panorama licence. This guidance on Commons might help: [1]

• Looks like there is no FoP in French copyright law. In light of this, I have opted to delete the image. Zawed (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If you can address these issues, I will come back and have another read through. Overall, the article looks pretty good and I think if you can cover off on most of the above points, it should make the GA grade. If you have questions or concerns about my comments, please let me know. Thanks for your efforts. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review AR. I have started working on revising this as per your feedback, it may take a few days. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

G'day, no worries, your changes are looking quite good. I will be quite busy at work over the next week, so I might not get back to check the review until next weekend, but it looks like you've got it well in hand. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I think I have dealt with all the issues or left comments/explanations. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• Issues raised above have been rectified

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

  • All paragraphs are referenced and reliable sources are used.
  • No OR detected.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• All aspects of the topic which appear to be covered in sources are covered
• A couple of minor details are missing - i.e. German units/commander - but these omissions appear to reflect omissions in the sources that exist (not the research done), so I don't have concerns here

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• No issues that I could detect

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• No issues that I could detect

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

• Concerns raised above have been addressed.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

• Excellent work, Zawed, and thanks to Keith for helping out. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)