Talk:Gallipoli campaign/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Dank (talk · contribs) 15:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review

  • The external links tool is showing some problems.
  • "took place on the Gallipoli peninsula in the Ottoman Empire (now Gelibolu in modern day Turkey)": took place on the Gallipoli peninsula (now Gelibolu in modern day Turkey) in the Ottoman Empire
  • "Sensing gain": Sensing an opportunity
  • "the Ottoman Empire had agreed": the Ottoman Empire agreed
  • "and seeking advantage from the situation, the Germans offered the cruisers": the Germans offered the cruisers
  • "as compensation": the Germans hadn't done anything they needed to compensate for.
  • "The Allies attempted to intercept the ships, but they managed to escape": ... which managed to escape
  • "despite being required under international law, by virtue of their neutrality, to block international military shipping": This might refer to the Allies, the ships, or the Ottoman government. Better would be: "despite the requirement under international law that neutral countries, such as the Ottoman Empire, were to block international military shipping"
  • "In doing so, in British eyes they confirmed their alliance with Germany.": "In doing so" might refer to three or four different things here. And surely not in all British eyes? Some probably thought the Ottomans didn't refuse a couple of free ships because they wanted a couple of free ships.
  • "The following month, the British naval mission, which had been established in the empire in 1912, under Admiral Arthur Limpus, was recalled.": The following month, the British naval mission to the Ottomans, established in 1912 under Admiral Arthur Limpus, was recalled.
  • "After this, command of the Ottoman navy was extended to a German": If I need to change the advice at WP:Checklist#because, please let me know. That suggests that "after" is better than "because" in some settings, but "after this" isn't the best way to say what you want here. "then" works better (even though it's roughly synonymous). Maybe: "The Ottomans then offered command of their navy to a German" ... but I'm not sure whether that means they were insisting on just that guy.
  • "the Goeben": "Official" WP:SHIPS style says that the "the" is fine, and I have no problem with that, but since we omit it more often than not in front of ship names, check the rest of the article for consistency on this, or omit the "the".
  • "In response, the Allies demanded the Ottomans expel the German missions, but they refused and on 31 October": The Ottomans refused an Allied demand to expel the German missions, and on 31 October
  • "as part of the Central Powers": as one of the Central Powers (or, on the side of the Central Powers)
  • "A shell subsequently hit": A shell hit
  • "Britain and France declared war on 5 November, while the Ottomans declared a jihad in November, subsequently launching": Britain and France declared war on 5 November, and the Ottomans declared a jihad (holy war) later that month, launching
  • "to move against the British in Egypt in order to threaten": Please see WP:Checklist#because. "to move against the British in Egypt to threaten"
  • "Meanwhile, the Ottomans began preparations ... beginning in early 1915": began ... beginning is confusing. Since "beginning in early 1915" is out of chronological sequence, I think I'd just drop that here and wait til the narrative gets to 1915 to mention it.
  • Okay, so we've got a problem here ... that's just the first subsection (I covered the lead during the peer review), so there's more to do here than I'm going to have time to do. I'm guessing you can find someone to help out with the prose, so I'll pause the review here and wait for help. - Dank (push to talk) 19:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Made some changes to the prose to be more laconically descriptive.Keith-264 (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Believe I've fixed the external link issues by adding the web archive url to the template. Pls let me know if you see anything else. Anotherclown (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thx AC. I see Rupert has had a go at the prose, I'll give it another look. - Dank (push to talk) 21:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Gday again, apologies for adding content during the review. Realised there was still quite a bit missing on the submarine campaign. Have finished doing so now. Anotherclown (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The changes to the first subsection look good, except that scare quotes were added here: "a British landing to "protect" the oil facilities". Please see WP:MOS#Expressions of doubt. - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gone
  • "the German Kaiserliche Marine": "navy" needs to be in there somewhere, since most of our readers don't speak German.
    • Bracketed IGN
  • "war of manoeuvre": war of manoeuvring, or war of manoeuvre and counter-manoeuvre, maybe
    • Wikilinked manoeuvre and trench warfare
      • Right, I have no objection to the term, I'm just not sure readers will get it immediately ... you're linking to "manoeuvre warfare", and that may be a more immediately accessible term. - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "less efficient, the White Sea": less efficient, as the White Sea - Dank (push to talk) 03:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A recent edit in the previous subsection: "By allowing the German ships to enter the Dardanelles, the Ottomans were considered by the British to be in alliance with Germany." IMO, WP:Checklist#mindreading is relevant here ... that is, it's better style, and it's Milhist's style, to say what they did (even if all they did was have a meeting to discuss how to deal with potential conflict with the Ottomans), instead of saying what was on their minds. Of course, even highly reliable sources often claim that one side offended the other side's sensibilities and forced them to take action, but more often than not, the claim is wrong ... that is, usually, when countries have decided to go to war immediately, there were other available options, they just decided not to pursue them. - Dank (push to talk) 13:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't mindreading by the original editor but an awkward paraphrase of the source, which I found here, http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gallipoli-1915-Frontal-Military-Campaign/dp/1855321114/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374326755&sr=8-1&keywords=Gallipoli+1915%3A+Frontal+Assault+on+Turkey.#reader_1855321114 I have amended the text to better reflect it. (I was expecting the source to advert to a discussion in the Foreign Office and Admiralty....)Keith-264 (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, it's my naive opinion ... and I'm way over my head here ... that the article may not be accurately reflecting the sources on this; the article seems to say that Turkey forced Britain's hand, but that's not what I get from that source at all. I'm also not comfortable with the prose. I've asked for a second opinion on this one, and I'd like to hand it off to whoever is willing to tackle it. I hope the prose work I've done so far has been helpful ... I'm quite happy with the changes so far. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • G'day, Dank, yes, much appreciated. In regards to the sentence, I have reworded it so it uses a direct quote from the source. Does that alleviate your concern? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks Rupert, but it doesn't, and I'd rather not get into it (and I'm sorry I didn't anticipate this when I signed on to review ... I'm rarely personally aware of potential NPOV issues in articles tagged by the Australian task force). This article covers an event that's part of the defining national myth for several countries, so dealing with the relevant issues is above my pay grade. Again, the nature of the problem I see is: the referenced source, and other sources, suggest that Turkey was in a very weakened state, was confronting considerable and credible threats, and was attemping to play one power against the other and avoid being invaded if possible. That isn't at all the sense I get from the current text. - Dank (push to talk) 12:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Something like this?

The Congress of Berlin (1878) confirmed the principle in the Treaty of Paris (1856) which ended the Crimean War and the Treaty of San Stefano (1878) which had ended the Russian–Turkish war that the Bosporus and Dardanelles should be closed to foreign warships while the Ottoman Empire was at peace, except for individual ships invited by the Sultan. In wartime foreign warships were barred from passing the Straits but trading vessels could use the waterway unhindered. Since the Crimean War Britain had been the dominant foreign power in the Ottoman Empire but the Anglo-Russian Entente of 1907 led the Ottoman government to look for allies and the German government to make military, diplomatic and economic approaches to the Ottomans, sending a military mission to reorganise the Tttoman army and floating a loan which had been refused by Britain and France. Talaat Bey and Enver Pasha led the pro-German faction in the Ottoman cabinet aganist a pro-British majority and in late 1913 obtained the services of a German military mission and SMS Goeben visited Constantinople. During the Sarajevo Crisis in 1914 German diplomats offered an anti-Russian alliance and territorial gains in Caucasia, north-west Iran and Trans-Caspia. The pro-British faction in the Cabinet was isolated due to the British ambassador taking leave until 18 August. As the crisis deepened in Europe Ottoman policy was to obtain a guarantee of territorial integrity and potential advantages, unaware that the British might enter a European war. On 27 July a secret alliance was requested from the German ambassador, which was accepted within 24 hours, on 31 July Enver Pasha ordered mobilisation and the treaty was signed on 2 August; next day mining began in the Dardanelles and the German government ordered SMS Goeben and SMS Breslau back to Constantinople. Ratification of the treaty was delayed by the British declaration of war on 4 August and Enver Pasha approached the Russian Military Attaché on 5 August to propose a Russian–Turkish alliance. [1]Keith-264 (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dank - I've made a few tweaks but I think it will probably need a bit more work given the concerns raised above. Thoughts? Keith - not opposed to this, and certainly there seems to be quite a lot that useful about this paragraph. In someways it almost seems too detailed to me though. Would be interested in knowing where in the structure of that section you propose to put it? Also AR and Dank what are your thoughts on the proposed paragraph? Anyway its late here and I have to go. Unexpectedly it looks like I may be called away from town again for the next 3 days so if I'm not around I'll leave this to you guys to work through. Apologies for not doing more on this review, thanks Keith and AR for your efforts to this point. Anotherclown (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since Gallipoli forms part of the founding myth for several countries, this is a very special situation, and it would probably be best for the article to say whatever the editors can live with. Neither you guys nor I have anything to gain from my interference, but I'm not personally comfortable with either the current text or the proposed text, and I've asked at WT:MIL for someone to step in and finish up this review. Sorry. I'm going to be much more careful choosing GANs in the future; I generally stick to prose work for A-class and FAC articles. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries, Dan, I appreciate your help so far. Given that we've all worked pretty hard to promote a neutral point of view since we started revamping the article, I'd genuinely be interested to hear your suggestions about a better way to word the information, but I'm not going to press you given you don't seem comfortable doing so. That said, I'm disappointed that our past interactions don't appear to have established a level of trust where you would be happy to continue, and I am left uncertain about a way forward. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep pretty disappointing given we have responded / addressed every concern that has been raised to this point (at least those that have been articulated in a manner that we could). Happy for objective criticism and I don't believe any of us have reacted unfavorably to anything that has been raised. This article is obviously the result of the work of literally hundreds of editors over many years so there is bound to be some unevenness in how it has developed. This is one of the more prominent articles in the project (certainly the most significant I have worked on) so I guess I rather ambitiously thought it should be improved. That said numerous editors have been invited to comment on it over the past few months by AR and myself and it underwent a peer review before coming to GAN so I thought a fairly reasonable effort had been made to pull it up to standard. Could understand your concerns if it had recklessly been nominated for a review but I don't believe this was the case. Dank - if you don't feel able to continue the review then that's obviously up to you, but perhaps you might feel able to have a go at rewording it yourself to address the concerns that you have? No one is arguing with you. Anotherclown (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, I've cancelled my request for someone else to step in. One hat that I wear at Milhist and on WP generally, successfully (so far), is "copyeditor". Milhist people have been great about letting me bring in suggestions from style guides and letting me fiddle with their text, but WPians in general and writers in general get very touchy about their words. Another hat I wear is "closer"; there are big RfCs from time to time concerning what's perceived as the "power structure" of WP where I'm the only person who volunteers to close who winds up being accepted by all parties. These hats haven't been as confining as I feared they would be, but I do try to avoid subjects that involve strong national pride, because that's just inviting trouble that may wind up interfering with my other jobs. I don't understand how you two reached the conclusion that my preference for someone else to step in had anything to do with not respecting or trusting either of you ... I signed on primarily because you two were nominating this. If there's something we need to talk about, I invite both of you to do that, by email or publicly. I'll resume the review now.
            • P.S. I'm coming down with something, so maybe I'm not thinking clearly, I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 01:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, a style point: when explaining the genesis of wars, Milhist style (more than scholarly sources, more than other tertiary sources) is a bit more ... well, "A, B, C and D happened, and then there was a war". Whether we say "These events led to war" or not, many readers will read the events that way.
  • In a nutshell, the problem that I'm seeing ... and I'm quite aware that you guys know much more about the sources than I do ... is that I've heard from historians, and I've read, and I believe, that there are substantial differences of opinion on the question of why and how the Ottoman Empire entered the war, but this article leaves me with only one view, and one view can't represent multiple views in a non-neutral way. Another problem is that, inevitably, the consensus of sources (and of the participants) in the years after a war will be very different from the consensus of sources a hundred years on, because in the years following the war, the huge cost has to be justified ... people are simply not willing to consider the possibility that their country had any choices other than the ones they made, otherwise the cost is unbearable. In the 21st century, we're better at avoiding world wars, and these days, historians are less likely to take the position that any country in WWI, including the Ottomans, "forced" the conflict. Of course, this article doesn't say that ... but that's what many readers are going to read into our text, precisely because we remain mute on the subject of causes, while assigning the "last transgression" (accepting the two cruisers) to the Ottomans.
  • Of course, this is Wikipedia, and this is an article concerning the "founding myths" of several countries ... which means we need to give up hope on a "clean" solution and instead look for whatever solutions have evolved on Wikipedia, whatever the editors here have come to accept. I'm reading the relevant articles now. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think your last point is a non-sequitur; as for the article, it has the generic failing of reflecting the sources available to the writer. Better or more sources can lead to a more nuanced article, which I think is evident later on in the description of events. I'm a little surprised that you keep inferring the effect of the writing on "the reader" and as the C21st only 13 years old, I wouldn't be too sure about a teleological view of world war. I don't have much on Gallipoli and left the origins alone because Aspinall's racist slurs on the Ottomans is repellent; you'd think he would be a little circumspect coming from a country which invented terror famines. Travers is silent on the origins and that's all I've got, except for Barraclough and I don't have that with me yet. The piece I put on here is from Aspinall, as an alternative if you're interested but it reads like diplomatic history and I'm more of a structural-functionalist. It supports your view that the Ottos were scheming, like every other parcel of rogues, to profit from the war brewing in Europe. Keith-264 (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec, written before I saw Keith's post) The problem I'm talking about is limited to the "Ottoman entry into the war" subsection ... and if there are problems in other sections, I wouldn't know, I'm not a WWI historian (although note that Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau#Consequences says that the straits were closed on 27 September, and not "following the Ottoman entry into the war"). From my reading so far, the job of bringing this article into some kind of alignment with other Wikipedia articles looks hopeless, because the other articles are all over the place. For instance, contrast Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau#Escape, Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau#Consequences and Ottoman–German Alliance with World War I#Ottoman Empire and Middle Eastern theatre of World War I#Ottomans and Central Powers. A couple of options come to mind: we could try to cover all the significant points of view in the "Ottoman entry into the war" subsection, or we could shorten that subsection enough so that readers don't draw any conclusions (from this article, at least) about who was responsible for the conflict. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 17:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dank. Apologies. I missed the significance of your comment "says that the straits were closed on 27 September, and not "following the Ottoman entry into the war")." I have now reword this [1]. Hope this works. Anotherclown (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing. Feel free to revert my copyediting.
  • File:G.C. 18 March 1915 Gallipoli Campaign Article.jpg has a tag that indicates the copyright holder has released the image ... I guess that means the person who assembled the 5 images together has released his copyright, but that doesn't tell me anything about the copyright status of the assembled photos.
    • I've posted a request on the creator's talk page asking them to add links to the source images to the image description page, so we can determine the status of the individual images. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • So far, I have located source images for four of the five images. They all seem to be listed as "copyright expired" or "not restricted" at their sources, but I am still trying to find the warship image. I have added links to the source files on the image description page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I found the source for the last image in the montage, also PD taken c. 1915 both official RN photographer and published b/n 1915 and 1917. I think this issue has now been dealt with. Anotherclown (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Map of Turkish forces at Gallipoli April 1915.png was traced from another map; do we have any information on the copyright status of that map?
    • It appears to come from p. 236 of Volume I of the Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918, which was originally published in 1921 (and reprinted many times after that with some revisions). I'm not sure whether that means it is ok, or not, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wouldn't {{PD-1923}} apply here? Anotherclown (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've tweaked the image description pages to include links to the pages in Bean, and listing the date of the original source. Not sure about adding the 1923 tag as the map looks sufficiently different to me, but I'm really confused about the best way to handle this to be honest. It seems like a derivative work, in which case the Commons policy might be here: [2]. Unfortunately the original author doesn't seem to be active. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same question for File:Anzac covering force landing April 25 1915.jpg.
    • As above: p 256. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably also {{PD-1923}}. Anotherclown (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've tweaked the image description pages to include links to the pages in Bean, and listing the date of the original source. Not sure about adding the 1923 tag as the map looks sufficiently different to me, but I'm really confused about the best way to handle this to be honest. It seems like a derivative work, in which case the Commons policy might be here: [3] Unfortunately the original author doesn't seem to be active. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Cape Helles landing map.jpg may or may not have been traced.
    • I'll see if I can find it in Bean (like the others above) as it seems a likely place it was. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't able to find anything similar in Bean, so I don't know if it has been traced or not. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Try Erickson 2001 or 2007 - I think I saw one there. --Rskp (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Scene just before the evacuation at Anzac. Australian troops charging near a Turkish trench. When they got there the... - NARA - 533108.tif is taken from "Series: British Photographs of World War I, compiled 1914 - 1918", author unknown, but the copyright tag applies to US government works.
    • Whilst no author is listed, the NARA entry lists the War Department as the creator and states that there are no restrictions on its use [4]. Assuming NARA are right it seems correctly tagged to me. I'm assuming your concerned that the photo wasn't taken by a US government employee (which I guess is a possibility given there would probably have been relatively few Americans on the beaches)? Not sure how to resolve that concern and can only really go with what NARA is claiming. Or is there a more generic tag that would be appropriate? (I don't think {{PD-1923}} would necessarily be right. Anotherclown (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Attaturkswords5.jpg: Does freedom of panorama apply?
    • Yes, I believe so per the guidance on Commons: [5]. I've added a licence to the image reflecting this. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Gallipoligrave.jpg: A morbid question, perhaps, but is there an issue concerning the rights of the maker of a gravestone? - Dank (push to talk) 20:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC) Striking this one. - Dank (push to talk) 12:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I think you guys have looked at everything I asked for on the images, good work. - Dank (push to talk) 20:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dank - thank you for persevering with this. Ack your cmts above, will have to go back to the sources and see what I can come up with. Have Michael Howard's "The First World War" which might be useful. I'm not an expert on images (and didn't add any of them) but will have a look and see what I can figure out. If you can wait a bit longer will try to work through these issues and if not at least the article will have been improved. I appreciate your thoroughness. Anotherclown (talk) 09:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From Agadir to Armageddon: Anatomy of a Crisis by Geoffrey Barraclough (1982) I'll be able to have a look at this later today.Keith-264 (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keith - I've added quite a bit of the material from your proposed paragraph above; however, the cite you used had a rather large page range (1-11). Could you possibly refine the page numbers to be more specific? Also what does everyone think of this change? Does this work or is further work required? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with either direction ... we can include all POVs with significant historical support (that we can dig up, anyway), or none of them, and I'll be happy. ("None" would allow some basic description of events leading up to the conflict, but IMO there's significantly more than "some basic description" now, giving the impression that we're trying to establish, or at least suggest, why it came to war.) If we're going with "all", then I'll leave a message over at WT:TURKEY asking for help. - Dank (push to talk) 12:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can put in a few extra citations. Barraclough wasn't any help but Hew Strachan might be.Keith-264 (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the Aspinall citation and added snippet from Strachan.Keith-264 (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Keith. Anotherclown (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "apart from a few tentative steps inland": I'm not sure what that means. - Dank (push to talk) 23:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • G'day, I've changed this to: "apart from a few limited advances inland by small groups of men". Does this work? Also, I made a couple of other tweaks; please feel free to revert if you don't agree with them. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. "Lieutenant-Commander", "Lieutenant Commander": consistency - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well spotted. AR got this one. Anotherclown (talk) 03:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tidied the Ottoman counter-attack and put citations at the end of sentences. Change back if desiredKeith-264 (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to push 17,000 Australians and New Zealanders "back into the sea" ... Australian casualties were 160 killed and 468 wounded.": I don't see any mention of NZ casualties; are they included in the Australian number?
    • According to Bean and Carlyon these figures were for "ANZAC" forces combined, have reworded accordingly.
  • " much like the Christmas truce of 1914 but was not repeated formally": nonparallel. Also, analogies are always dangerous unless it's clear in what way the two events were similar; someone may think you're saying the two sides sang to each other. You might say for instance (if true): "Hostilities ceased for x days, just as during the Christmas truce of 1914."
  • In general, I'm not doing much with adding or deleting commas. Reviewers at FAC may object to the comma usage, so look for help with that if you're headed to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 19:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What "comma usage"?Keith-264 (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are a lot of comma problems; commas don't generally go between the subject and verb of a sentence, for instance. - Dank (push to talk) 21:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why have the isbns not got hyphens in?Keith-264 (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gday only for consistency, some didn't have them to start with so I removed them from the ones that did (as it is not a requirement to have then as far as I know). Equally we could put them in for all but that would have been more work. Anotherclown (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In June, a seaplane carrier HMS Ben-my-Chree, bolstered the Allied air force, which expanded from one squadron to No. 3 Wing RNAS and the 52nd Division, began to land at Helles for the Battle of 'Gully Ravine' which was launched on 28 June.": I can't parse that. - Dank (push to talk) 21:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "northwest", "north-west": consistency.
  • "Canakkale", "Çanakkale": consistency.
  • "so diluted his early objectives", "been so "half-hearted" in his demands": What's a diluted objective, or a half-hearted demand?
  • "captured the main Ottoman trench line in a diversion to draw Ottoman forces away from the main assaults at the peaks of Chunuk Bair and Hill 971 which failed.": What failed?
  • "attacked the near peak of Chunuk Bair and came within 500 metres (550 yd) of the peak": came within 500 metres (550 yd) of the near peak of Chunuk Bair
  • "counterattack": Up to you if you want to link it, but don't link it at the 5th occurrence. - Dank (push to talk) 22:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for service in Salonika in Greece, which marked the beginning of the end of the campaign.": I'm not sure what you're saying.
  • The last paragraph (and the sentence before that) in the "August offensive" subsection aren't in the same time frame as the rest of it. That might be okay with some tweaking, or it might be possible to move them into the next subsection. - Dank (push to talk) 23:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done the last two points with these edits [8] [9]. Do these work or is further req'd? Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, thanks, everything looks fine so far. - Dank (push to talk) 20:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "other areas of conflict in the Middle East": Quotes need to be attributed in-text; personally, I wouldn't quote that, the particular wording doesn't seem significant. - Dank (push to talk) 01:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roslyn has added a "clarify" tag, which needs to be dealt with one way or another before this passes GAN. - Dank (push to talk) 02:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " It is estimated that 145,000 more British soldiers became ill": I don't get the "more".
  • "Since the 1980s, it has become popular for Australian and New Zealand tourists to visit Gallipoli to attend the dawn service there, and every year thousands do so.": I don't know what year is meant; if it's 1989, then: "Every year since 1989, thousands of Australian and New Zealand tourists have attended the dawn service at Gallipoli."
    • I changed this, but unforrtunately I can't specify an exact date. The source says "...these did not become popular until the 1980s". AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "country song": ? - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't checked to make sure every reference is cited. I have checked that they're in alpha order. - Dank (push to talk) 03:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. The sfn wiki mark up should tell us if we haven't cited one, and it doesn't seem showing any errors, so hopefully all is well with this. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this hidden comment in Evacuations: "Great pic in its rich details, spoilt by the fuzz on the left; is it possible to crop this?"
  • Done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, everything looks good. One more: by the time you get to FAC, people will ask for consistency in en-dashes vs. em-dashes (for breaks, not for ranges). For the NPOV issue, I left a message at WT:TURKEY but we've had no response. I need to do some reading. - Dank (push to talk) 10:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry I haven't been around much lately but it couldn't be helped. The page looks in much better shape and I did a quick ce of the lead, hope it helps. Keith-264 (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, and that looks good. The meaning of "contemporary" is clear in some contexts, but in other contexts, it has become a mostly useless word, since it could just as easily mean "then" as "now". I replaced one instance of it with "modern". - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • contemporary (adj.) 1630s, from Medieval Latin contemporarius, from Latin com- "with" (see com-) + temporarius "of time," from tempus "time" (see temporal (v.)). Meaning "modern, characteristic of the present" is from 1866.Keith-264 (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Passed. I'm not going to hold up this nominator over my lack of background knowledge, but I'm going to be reading up, and I'll try to deal better with what I believe Dr. Jensen would call the "old-fashioned" tone in the subsection on the lead-up to the conflict, when this article gets to A-class or FAC. A ton of work has gone into this article, and it shows ... well done. - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Dan, I really appreciate the thoroughness of your review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I could help. - Dank (push to talk) 00:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dank - thank you from me also for your very conscientious efforts as reviewer. The article req'd a lot work than I thought it would so I greatly appreciate your time. Anotherclown (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, that happens at GAN. I think I'm going to go back to focusing on A-class and FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 12:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Aspinall-Oglander 1929, pp. 1–11.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gallipoli_campaign/GA1&oldid=903220459"