Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Long Range Desert Group

Long Range Desert Group edit

I would like to request a peer review of this article. I would like to progress the article up the scale GA, A and FA if possible. At present there is a disagreement between two editors on what should be included (I am one of the editors). MOS and other suggestions welcome ad as always all suggestions welcome. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose edit

Heh, not a promising opening with The Long Range Desert Group (LRDG) was a unit of the British Army during World War II. Who in the words of the commander of the Afrika Korps, Field Marshal Erwin Rommel: "caused us more damage than any other British unit of equal strength. Something like The Long Range Desert Group (LRDG) was a unit of the British Army during World War II. The commander of the Afrika Korps, Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, said that it "caused us more damage than any other British unit of equal strength. would be an improvement methinks.
Anyway, that's just first glance at the lead, I'm sure it will get better as I look over the rest of it in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Text changed --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mention the LRDG being known initially as the Long Range Patrol Unit (LRP) or the Long Range Desert Patrol, which makes it sound like simultaneous alternate names for the same thing, but later on you give the impression they were separate or at least that one preceded the other: In the LRP most of the radio operators were New Zealanders, but the LRDG radio operators were all from the Royal Corps of Signals. This should be made clear one way or t'other.
Style-wise, combining some of the short-short paras would help. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; the name LRP was used only for a few months; once the unit expanded with volunteers from other countries it bacame the LRDG. Note, too that in the fourth paragraph of the intro there is a statement which reads "After the end of the war in Europe, it was suggested that the LDRG be transferred to the far east..." - although some editors would like the origins of the suggestion to be specified this may be difficult, as it was more likely to have been mooted by more than one individual. Minorhistorian (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a cited, reliable source says "some suggested that..." or words to the effect, i.e. the source says there was a suggestion but doesn't name the originator(s), then I think it's fair enough to use what would otherwise appear as weasel words (i.e. "it was suggested...") -- citing a reliable source for the speculation is the main thing. In any case, either the speculation needs to be cited and the "(by whom?)" removed, or the entire sentence needs to go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Minorhistorian (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't think that's adequate. What exactly did O'Carroll say about the suggestion to transfer the LRDG to the Far East? Surely there must be some indication as to who made the suggestion - War Office, Fourteenth Army, or others? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC) 09:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haskew just claims it was from the leaders of the LRDG to the war office text amended. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert edit

Just a few comments from me:

some of the citations have years, but other don't (e.g. # 78 "Pearson, p.39", but # 79 "O'Carroll 2000, pp. 185-189");

Fixed

the bibliography could be formatted with the {{cite book}} template;

This has been a bone of contention and was starting to get into an edit war with using cite book or not. I tend to agree but unless there is any major objection will leave it as it is for now ?

some of the ISBNs are hyphenated, but others aren't (e.g. Morgan, Pearson and Shortt aren't);

Fixed

on my screen there was a bit of whitespace which I've tried to correct by moving the images slightly. Please revert if you don't like how it looks now;

No looks fine

in the Road watch section, there is a typo here: " 27 vehicle and about 200 men".

Fixed

— AustralianRupert (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*the bibliography could be formatted with the {{cite book}} template;

This has been discussed at length; AustralianRupert's contention that this could be used is a matter of personal taste and should not affect this review. I have read through the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) and I can find no mention that this template needs to be used; in the latter MOS the section Bibliographies - Books in English states, in part:

"For works created and first published in English, vital information is the title and year of first publication. Provide the subtitle too, unless it is painfully longwinded....These should be supplemented with publication details where helpful. (The standard form is "Place: Publisher, Year.")"

The template does not provide enough of the supplementary information (ie: Subtitle, Place), nor does it follow the format recommended Place, Publisher, Year. Please read the relevant Wikipedia articles. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was just a suggestion. When I wrote it I had not read the talkpage. However, I would like to point out that using the cite book/cite web etc. templates is a style that is preferred within the military history project by many editors who contribute A class articles. Having said that, there are many editors that don't use the template and that is fine also. I have no intention of holding matters of style (unless it is against the MOS) against the article (the rule at A Class Review is and should always be that the style is consistent throughout the article, not that the reviewer likes it or not, so if you take it to ACR I don't see the format being an issue). Finally, just so you have all the facts the cite book template does allow "place", it can be added in by using "|location=" parameter. Subtitle can also be added by placing it in the "|chapter=" "|=title" or "|series=" or "|work=" fields. It just requires some experiementation. For instance: Smith, John (2010). A History of Citation Templates in the 21st Century: Another Idea. Useless Works for Wikipedia series. Canberra, ACT: A Fictional Publishing House. ISBN 9780980379655.. Or Jones, Michael (2010). "How to Use the Cite Book Template". In Smith, John (ed.). A History of Citation Templates in the 21st Century: Another Idea. Useless Works for Wikipedia series. Canberra, ACT: A Fictional Publishing House. pp. 1–2. ISBN 9780980379655. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tweaked the bibliography section as it needed some spaces between the information and some semi colons in the works that have multiple authors. If you don't like the change, feel free to revert it. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; it's a bit like my university, where different departments insist on using different formats (eg; Chicago v MLA) for notes and bibliographys; it can be a real pain to work with when doing multiple papers. I generally prefer the Chicago style. Minorhistorian (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]