Talk:28th (Thames and Medway) Anti-Aircraft Brigade/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Kges1901 (talk · contribs) 12:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments

 * Thanks for taking this on. I will start chipping away at the actions.


 * Rereading in the light of your comments it has quite a way to go. A key on line source also seems to have disappeared. I am a little surprised, now, that you didn't give it a quick fail. (I have been toying with this for over 6 months, thinking that there was a GA in it. I suspect that I managed to fool myself.) I will work through your comments, and various other things I now see as I look at the article more critically. If you wish to give it a fail while I work on it I will understand. Regardless, I appreciate the detailed assessment comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think the issues are that bad to justify a quick fail as the content is relatively ok and the source issues should be resolvable from the sources you have as they are on uncontroversial matters. Kges1901 (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Referencing
 * Titles and Designations of Formations and Units of the Territorial Army is a dead link
 * Grr. I checked each link before nominating and ran checklinks. The price of trying to be clever and making it accessible. I can't (easily) recreate the link, but the document is reprinted in Litchfield as an appendix, so I will relabel the cite. Found it elsewhere. Fully labelled up.


 * ditto for "6 AA Division 1939" and "6AA Division 1940" at British Military History
 * 1939 Fixed. (I think.) 1940: stumped. (Frustrating. I am pretty sure I remember reading it when checking everything not so long ago.) I have found an archive version and fitted that in. Is that satisfactory?
 * Yes, but I still have questions about the reliability.


 * Are the online sources actually 'references' or are they actually external links?
 * They are intended to be references. I am - as you can probably tell - mostly used to working with hard copy sources, so I am not sure that I understand the distinction.
 * Then it is not necessary to have a separate section for them, as you've already cited the websites inline.


 * Full, individual citations are necessary for the Monthly Army List, including page numbers, otherwise at higher levels this will be considered to not meet verifiability


 * Page numbers needed for Farndale, Annex M
 * Done. Apologies. Sloppy of me.

Prose
 * Use citation templates for the references as standard
 * Web citations should at least use templates, as right now they are barely superior to bare urls
 * Why are britishmilitaryhistory.co.uk, RA 39-45, british-army-units1945on.co.uk, and patriot files reliable?
 * Collier Appendix XXIII needs a full citation and page number if possible
 * What are the credentials and expertise of Keith Bridgstock?
 * 89 HAA Rgt War Diary, 1939–40,TNA file WO 166/2380. is missing link to TNA catalog description.
 * There ought to be a better and clearer way to cite TNA
 * A new query on your additions: 28th Air Defence Brigade (AD Bde) was then formed at Tunbridge Wells to command the AA defences in the area, even though it only had 55th AA Bde the 28th AD Bde had another brigade under its command?
 * Since it was a TA unit during the interwar period, did they have any training with their guns or some such during that time?
 * Article does not explicitly state when it was reorganized as a group
 * The OOB breaks up the chronology, suggest documenting the organizational transformations in the body of the text and using Infobox command structure for the actual detailed OOB with unit locations itself. This generally applies to the other OOBs in the article as well.
 * The Mobilisation section is pretty much only the OOB, suggest you incorporate more details on how the process was carried out. Mobilisation and Phoney War can also be merged.
 * When in 1939 was the 6 AA division formed? Pre-September or after?
 * Done


 * In Phoney War, 'enemy minelaying aircraft' should be changed to German for NPOV and clarity, I presume?
 * Oops. At least one other example. Done.


 * The last two paragraphs in Phoney War are more properly part of the Battle of Britain section.
 * Relink Royal Naval Dockyard in body
 * Done.


 * The guns of 28 AA Bde and its neighbours were in action and accounted for 23 enemy aircraft. Verified claims, I presume? Also change 'enemy' to German, I think (unless the Italians were somehow involved).
 * Yes. In so far as the RAF "confirmed" claims; which, officially, at the time, it didn't. (It sounds ludicrously high to me, but RAF claims were (at least in this period and compared to the Germans).) I think that a bit on how claims and confirmations were dealt with would be appropriate.
 * Changed.


 * One of the lessons of the Battle of Britain was that day bombers needed to fly in tight formation for mutual protection against fighters, but in doing so they were vulnerable to AA fire. Rephrase so this sounds more relevant to the British AA gunners, as it is a German tactical shift.
 * Done


 * the guns of 28 AA Bde were in prolonged combat, especially with aircraft over Chatham Change 'aircraft' to 'bombers' for clarity.
 * Not done. At this time German fighters were flying close escort, effectively making one large target, even if the guns were attempting to concentrate on the bombers. They were specifically in close escort over Chatham in the morning, and almost certainly were in the afternoon. (I can't find a source to specify one way or another.)
 * All right then.


 * 28 Bde was in action night after night specific time period necessary for clarity
 * Done.


 * The whole was under the operational control of No. 11 Group RAF Presumably this means all of the AA defenses?
 * Clarified.


 * Not sure that it is relevant to mention "Blackett's Circus" in this article
 * Are you suggesting the removal of the whole section on technical improvements, or just the bit referring to the Operational Research Group being based at one of the 28th's sites?
 * Just suggesting that the mention of the nickname is not necessary - the section seems relevant.
 * Ah. Thanks. Done.


 * SL batteries Is that supposed to be SLC?
 * Yes.


 * The OOB in The Blitz is not a full OOB and should be integrated into the prose
 * In Mid-War, the organizational changes in the OOB should be integrated into the prose. The OOB also breaks up the chronology here as well.
 * Unabbreviate (M) to (Mixed) for clarity
 * Done. (Although this is not the official designation of the unit. Ie, it is not my abbreviation.)


 * In Operation Diver, briefly explain the specific problems the V1s caused for the AA gunners
 * Done, and expanded generally.


 * London IAZ's abbreviation should be defined at first mention in the Blitz, not under Operation Diver
 * Well spotted. Apologies. Done.


 * Why is "downed" in scare quotes?
 * Done. (Copied from the source by a previous editor and not picked up by me.)


 * ingenious Pile Platforms - careful about weasel words, also, didn't Pile have at least a key role in developing them
 * Done.
 * Not so far as I am aware; happy to pointed to a source which says otherwise. My, unsourced, understanding is that the platforms had been used as field expedients at least as early as the Battle of France.


 * Integrate OOB into text as it isn't that detailed
 * Section on demobilization should be in the 'postwar'
 * Done


 * (AA Command's corps and divisions had been disbanded in 1942 and a group structure introduced; 1 AA Group controlled the air defences of the London region) Hasn't this been already explained above?
 * For the Postwar section in general, were there any changes in the technology of the AA unit or organization in response to the beginning of the Cold War and the new Soviet threat?
 * Any details on brigade commanders, if any were notable?
 * None were. I could list commanders where known, red linking perhaps, but none are notable in their own right.
 * I won't insist on it then.

Kges1901 (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Kges1901 (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you still working on this or should I just fail this now? Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Apologies for both the long delayed response and the inaction. I think it best if you put both me and the article out of our misery. I will get round - eventually - to working properly through your comments, but despite all good intentions this has been sitting for far too long. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)