Talk:Battle of Bréville/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 01:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
 * Disambiguations: no dab links (no action required).
 * Linkrot: External links check out (no action required).
 * Alt text: image lacks alt text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only).
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is currently not working, however spot checks using Google searches reveal no issues (no action required).

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The heading "Prelude" seems a little out of place to me, perhaps consider changing to something like "7-8 June" (per the guidelines in WP:MILMOS/C the heading "Prelude" is normally used as a 2nd level heading before the "Battle" section to cover forces involved and their plans, where as you are using it here a little differently so I think just using the dates as the heading might work a little better).✅
 * "At 01:30 on 7 June, the 9th Parachute Battalion, with only around ninety men at the time...", consider perhaps "At 01:30 on 7 June, the 9th Parachute Battalion, with around only 90 men at the time..."
 * Comment "only around" sounds a lot more natural to me. With regard to the number, probably best to keep it as is, for consistency (see comments below). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Too easy. Anotherclown (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "...a half eaten meal..." should be "...a half-eaten meal...".✅
 * "They approached the Germans from the rear and trapped them in a crossfire, killing nineteen and capturing one...", should be "...killing 19 and capturing one..." per WP:MOSNUM.
 * Comment As I understand WP:ORDINAL, it considers three separate cases;


 * numbers from zero to nine, which are normally spelled out in words
 * numbers greater than nine that would require more than two words to spell out; these are normally rendered in numerals
 * numbers that are greater than nine that would only need one or two words to spell out; these can be either spelled out in words or rendered as numerals.


 * The common confusion seems to stem from people reading this quickly and remembering it as two simple cases; numbers greater than nine always to be rendered one way, and numbers nine or less always to be rendered another way. This isn't what the MOS actually says, though - it quite specifically makes clear that numbers in the third category can be rendered either way. Personally I almost always choose "ten" or "sixty" over "10" or "60" unless it's covered by one of the other situations that the MOS lists; it looks really wrong to me the other way, and it certainly isn't common practice in modern historical works (or even serious journalism) written in British or Commonwealth English. (Not so sure about U.S. English). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair call, I'll read this a bit closer in future. Anotherclown (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "With his two parachute brigades and the commando brigade heavily engaged Major-General Gale...", this should be "With his two parachute brigades and the commando brigade heavily engaged Major General Richard Gale..." per WP:SURNAME.✅
 * "machine gun" should be "machine-gun" (8 instances of this). ✅
 * "The tank destroyed two of company's machine gun posts...", which company? B Company ✅
 * "The German infantry were in danger of over-running the battalion, when Lieutenant-Colonel Otway contacted...", should just be: "The German infantry were in danger of over-running the battalion, when Otway contacted..." per WP:SURNAME. ✅
 * "Major-General Gale concluded that to relieve...", should just be "Gale concluded that to relieve..." (rm rank at 2nd instance per WP:SURNAME). ✅
 * "The only units available for the attack was the division reserve...", should be "The only units available for the attack were the division reserve..." ✅
 * "...by the time the company's fifteen survivors reached the village...", should be "...by the time the company's 15 survivors reached the village..." per WP:MOSNUM.
 * See above --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "As they crossed the start line another shell landed nearby killing Lieutenant-Colonel Johnson...", should be "As they crossed the start line another shell landed nearby killing Johnson..." per WP:SURNAME.✅
 * "...the eighteen survivors of 'A' Company were...", should be 18 per WP:MOSNUM.
 * "twenty survivors of the Devonshire company...", should be 20 per WP:MOSNUM.
 * "later followed by fifty-one men from the 22nd Independent Parachute Company...", should be 51 per WP:MOSNUM.
 * "part of the 6th Airlanding Brigade, were moved into the village...", might work bett as "was moved into the village...".✅
 * "three rifle companies with only thirty-five men between them...", should be 31 per WP:MOSNUM.
 * "The Devonshire company had another thirty-six killed...", should be 36 per WP:MOSNUM.
 * See above --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All major points are refenced to reliable sources.
 * Citations use a consistent style.
 * No issues with OR that I could see.
 * A couple of references are missing place of publishing details, including: Barber, Harclerode, Otway and Saunders (action required). ✅


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Coverage seems suitable to me.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * Looks fine IMO.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No issues here.


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
 * No issues. Images used are all PD or appropriately licenced.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Looks quite good, just a few prose and MOS issues to work through / discuss first. Happy to discuss any points you disagree with. Anotherclown (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * All done I believe see comments about numbers Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep looks good. Passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Great thanks for taking the time to review it.Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)