Talk:Battle of Nazareth

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Nazareth article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Battle of Nazareth 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
Date	Process	Result
December 11, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 21, 2023.

Military history: South Pacific / British / European / German / Ottoman / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	Ottoman military history task force
	World War I task force

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Nazareth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 00:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC) This review will commence in a bit. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for taking it on. --Rskp (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

Great, and very explanatory. A pass here.

Infobox[edit]

This is good. Passes.

Background[edit]

Both half sections look fine, as the reference at the end is consummate for the entire section.

Deployment[edit]

This section is also good. I have good feelings about this article!

Desert Mounted Corps objectives[edit]

Concise, and sufficient.

Esdraelon Plain[edit]

This section also passes!

Prelude[edit]

This mini-section looks good. I will continue tomorrow; so far, so excellent! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Mounted Corps advance[edit]

Sets an expository stage for the next few sections; it passes.

5th Cavalry Division[edit]

Good section.

Approach to Nazareth[edit]

When you say "negotiated" the path, does that mean the subjects repaired or secured the passageway?
Everything else good.

Thanks. Have clarified this. --Rskp (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Mounted Corps plans[edit]

Solid section here.

Battle[edit]

How could the 18th Lancers have mistaken a little village for Nazareth, albeit Nazareth is a village itself. If you can, elaborate there.
Everything else is good.

Sorry there is nothing more. It does sound like a lame excuse. --Rskp (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nazareth[edit]

"As they continuing their attack..." As they were continuing their attack...
Everything else, very good.

Done. --Rskp (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath[edit]

I was just about to ask about the dearth of German/Ottoman accounts, but the first note expounded why this is the case. Anyway, a very nice section here.

Conclusion[edit]

This is one of the best articles I have reviewed, and in consequence one of the most engaging reviews. I truly did scrutinize the article and found just these few issues. When they are ameliorated, I can pass the article. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your time and interest. Your comments are much appreciated. --Rskp (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]