Talk:Battle of Nablus (1918)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBattle of Nablus (1918) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 6, 2012Good article nomineeListed

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Nablus (1918)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 21:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. I appreciate your interest. --Rskp (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

I've now completed a very quick read of the article and just looked at the list of citations and references (but I've not checked any of these). On this basis, I would expect to be awarding GA-status to the article at the end of this review (well, some work might to be need to fix "problems" if and when they arise). Note: I get the impression that there might be a bit of Overlinking in the Lead, but that's only a first impression.

    • Cut some overlinks in intro. --Rskp (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now going to review the article, starting at Background working my way to the end and then going back to do the WP:Lead. I'm not likely to have this finished today, but I would expect to have finished by Wednesday or Thursday.

At this point, I will mostly be listing "problems": minor ones I sometime fix as I go as it is often quicker than listing them and then checking them after they are fixed. So if I don't find many problems this section will be short. Pyrotec (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Background -
  • I got a bit lost in this section: in the first paragraph I was suddenly reading about replacement of German commander in the Ottoman army and I was not aware of what was going one. I then looked at that Info box and saw "part of: Battle of Megiddo (1918) and Sinai and Palestine Campaign".
  • checkY Pyrotec (talk) -This section needs to bring the "bigger picture" to the reader(s). The easiest way of doing this is possible to add a link at the top of this section
    See also: Battle of Megiddo (1918), Sinai and Palestine Campaign, and World War One
  • You don't have to do it this way, but this information aught to be provided in some form at the beginning of this section.
    • Added more info re 'big picture' to intro which reinforces why all the changes in command in the Yildirim Army Group. --Rskp (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have added links to Megiddo, Sinai and Palestine Campaign and WW1 as suggested. --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added additional links in Background to articles which cover information currently in the second paragraph of the lead. Hope this is ok because it then frees up the second paragraph of the lead to be replaced with a better introduction to the topic. --Rskp (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also my comments about the Lead. There is material that only appears in the Lead. It either needs to come out the Lead entirely, or (perhaps) moved into the body of the article and then reinserted into the Lead in summarised form. Pyrotec (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • checkY Pyrotec (talk) - The third sentence in the first paragraph reads: The commander of the Eighth Army ...... was replaced by Djevad Pasha and Cemal appointed Cemal Kucjuk Pasha to ..... I don't know if this is a typo, but there are two Cemal's: Cemal and Cemal Kucjuk Pasha. Who is (plain) Cemal?
    • Added links to differentiate the Cemals. --Rskp (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk)

  • Prelude -
  • Generally OK. I added quite a few wikilinks as there were weapons systems and forces that were Wikipedia:UNDERLINKed (the opposite of WP:Overlinked). I also removed a general link to the Royal Air Force and the Australian Flying Corps, but replaced them with links to specific wings/corps.
  • EEF is used for the first time in the body of the article, so it needs to be defined.
  • Battle -
  • Generally OK. Again, I added a few wikilinks.
  • Aftermath -
  • This is required to comply with WP:Lead. It should introduce the topic, summarise the main points discussed in the article (in proportion to their importance), but not introduce material that does not appear in the article.
  • The current lead is about the right length.
  • I regard the current lead as non-compliant as it includes various items that do not appear elsewhere in the body of the text (I exclude info boxes, illustrations, etc). At a quick count, the following only appear in the Lead (and nowhere else): Battle of Megiddo, Sinai and Palestine campaign, First and second TransJordan attacks (interestingly, the third attack appears in the body on the article, but not in the lead), Murray (Sir Archibald). There could be more, and I might have added some in error.
  • In addition, there is no mention in the Lead of air support nor sea power in the Lead, perhaps these were not all that important so in the way little details need to appear, but I would ask whether they were of negligible importance, since they are ignored?

At this point, I'm putting the review On Hold. I conclude that overall, the article is at GA-level, but I consider that a bit more work in need on the Lead, and that this may impact on a section or sections within the body of the article (see above).

The requirements for GA are given in WP:WIAGA and that requires, amongst others, compliance with clause 1(b) on the Lead, i.e. with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, and that is where I have concerns. As stated above, the length of the lead is probably about right, is more about questions over content. I'm happy to answer questions, hold discussions, etc.

Pyrotec (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Pyrotec. I have substantially rewritten the lead to include a better summation of the article. I hope these changes together with the additional 'see also' links to the Background subsection have corrected all the problems. --Rskp (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, the article is much improved. Pyrotec (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An informative and well researched article on a WW I battle topic.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    The lead has been considerably improved, so I'm happy to award GA status.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well cited and referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well cited and referenced.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated with contemporary maps and illustrations.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

This is a good article as well being a Good Article.

I think that in the fullness of time it could make it through WP:FAC, but I would recommend that before that, it be submitted to WP:PR for further consideration.

Congratulations on producing this article and in achieving GA. Pyrotec (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, indeed, Pyrotec. I am very grateful to you for taking the time to review this article, for your all the additional links, and for your insightful help regarding the problem with the lead and background sections. All the best and kind regards, --Rskp (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chaytor's Force description by Jukes[edit]

The description of Chaytor's Force as a "small mobile force" has been disputed on Talk:Battle of Megiddo (1918) page where the large scope of responsibilities under taken by the Force is recognised and suggests "corps-sized detachment" as Chaytor's Force operated quite independently from Desert Mounted Corps. --Rskp (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However a small mobile force is referenced as well as other descriptions of Chaytor's Force. A corps sized detachment is wrong size wise and there is no reference that it was the size of a corps. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Have cut the dubious reference and unnecessary detail. --Rskp (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

11,000 or 12,500 in Chaytor's Force?[edit]

Discussion between Jim Sweeney and RoslynSKP moved from the article as its getting long and involved:

  • ANZAC WAR DIARY says 8,000 and 3,000 =11,000 and 500 Egyptians (Labour Corps not part of the force).
  • The 500 Egyptians should be counted because they were part of the Egyptian Camel Transport Corps. These figures are for the night of 28/29 September AFTER THEIR CAMPAIGN HAD ENDED. To get a figure for Chaytor's Force you must add 126 casualties and the 1,051 sick on the last page of the Anzac War Diary. The figures for the casualties and sick from the 20th Infantry Brigade and the four infantry battalions are not given.
  • The sick still had to be fed the 1,051 is part of the 11,000 rations indented for.
  • How can they be, by 28/29 September most would be on their way back from Amman to Jerusalem and on to Kantara, only a the most recent sick would still be with the division's medical units. --Rskp (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is WP:SYNTH there is no evidence the sick were evacuated to Amman or Jerusalem. All we know for certain is that the ration strength was 11,000. The sick would have remained with their units or with the divisions field ambulances, the same sick as recorded in the previous months. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We also know for certain that 126 casualties and 1,051 sick were lost to the Anzac Mounted Division during the month of September; the totals are stated on 30 September. That is NOT WP:SYNTH --Rskp (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do not know the sick were lost to the division that is WP:SYNTH, what they reported sick with is not recorded, it could have been anything from a common cold to malaria. We also do not know if any were evacuated, the report for the previous month also shows over 1,200 reported sick, 1,370 in July, 670 in June what it does not reveal is how long they were sick for one day or 30 days. The facts are with two references the force consisted of 11,000 men. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are not "reported sick" these are sick. As the article descirbes, in September 1918 when the Spanish Flu and malignant malaria were rife "a common cold" would have been unusual. Please read the article and study the stats included, before making fanciful assumptions. --Rskp (talk) 04:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who goes sick in the armed forces reports sick, what fanciful assumptions are you referring to. I have not assumed anything read what I typed.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Populations living on the battlefields[edit]

The Populations living on the battlefields section have no bearing on the fighting or conduct of this battle and is just padding. Can you supply a good reason why this section should not be deleted.Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In order for an article to be awarded GA it must be "broad in its coverage." This information regarding the population living on the battlefield, is necessary to fulfill the criteria of broad coverage. --Rskp (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria is It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): The population of the battlefield is off focus, they had no bearing on the battle neither helping or hindering either side. Using your same rational why is there not a section of flora and fauna. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal ideas and interpretations are always interesting Jim Sweeney. In this case the article has already been assessed with the populations on the battlefield included, as a Good Article by an experienced, independent and knowledgeable editor. The information in its discreet subsection, while it may not be particularly of interest to those with narrowly military concerns, may be of considerable interest to more general readers. Why not let them have the opportunity to read this information? Those who are not interested in the population living on the battlefield can go straight to the other bits that interest them. --Rskp (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I copy edited this article just before its GAN and thus have it and its TP watch listed. I highly doubt the removal of a largely unrelated and generally digressive section in this article will affect its GA status. It's not about interest, or lack thereof, which is the point, it's relevance. Blackmane (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for your work Blackmane. However, you did not do the GA review so your comments should be seen in that light. --Rskp (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As this discussion is over several articles consolidated at Talk:Battle of Sharon (1918)#Populations living on the battlefields can all further comments be added there .Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the discussion should be consolidated here. --Rskp (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This will be my last comment here, as obviously the opinions of a mere copy editor is neither needed nor appreciated. I had seen that Jim Sweeney had beat me to the punch in requesting the reviewer's opinion, a call which I have furthered. I will be taking this page and the article off my list. Blackmane (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You two can discuss the issue here. No need to edit war. I've protected the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following information, which was the subject of the above discussion, has been cut from this article[edit]

--Rskp (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War and loss of GA status[edit]

It is important that this article not be censored, by Jim Sweeney cutting information which is relevant, contemporary and well cited. This is not unnecessary information about the battle but the last subsection of the Background section of the article. This is the right place for the identification of the people living on the battlefield at the time of the battle. Although it is not known whether these people were involved in the fighting, their identity should be available to readers. This article describes another example of the great empires fighting over other people's country and those peoples should be known. --Rskp (talk) 03:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reinserted the GA icon on 16 November. --Rskp (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus was reached to remove such sections as off focus and not relevant to the battle. They played no part in the battle neither helped or hindered either side. Its not censorship if you believe its so important for future generations to know who lived in Palestine 100 years ago, start the Population of Palestine 1910-1920 article. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And so, after all that the following few words have been cut :

The inhabitants of the region, from Beersheba to Jericho, varied greatly in their background, religious beliefs and political outlook. The population was mainly Arab of the Sunni branch of Islam, with some Jewish colonists and Christians. At Nablus, they were almost exclusively Moslems excepting the less than 200 members of the Samaritan sect of original Jews. To the east of the Jordan Valley in the Es Salt district were Syrian and Greek Orthodox Christians, and near Amman, Circassians and Turkmans.[1]

Wikipedia is the poorer. --Rskp (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ GB Army EEF Handbook 9/4/18 p. 61

Dubious source[edit]

The author of the Long Long Trail for Family Historians claims the 75th Division did not take part in the Battle of Nablus. [1] --Rskp (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Nablus (1918). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Nablus_(1918)&oldid=1206177366"