Talk:Battle of Katia/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments

 * Some cn tags added
 * Working on these
 * All citations needed have been added
 * There is a disambiguation link for Romani which needs fixing
 * Done
 * The two notes need citations
 * Why? The information is not contentions; the first is to geographic places which I've added links to and the second one refers to a Wikipedia article to which it is linked.
 * What makes History.com a reliable source and if it is the links need formatting correctly accessdate/publisher/title etc
 * Will check this
 * Added by AustralianRupert
 * Hi, Roslyn and Jim, regarding the reliability of History.com, I think that they would be classified as a "reliable source". They appear to be run by A&E TV Network, which I think is the company behind the History Channel. I might be wrong, though. Do you know if there is a list of RS websites somewhere that we could check this out on? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Archibald Wavell, 1st Earl Wavell can be authorlinked for The Palestine Campaigns. A Short History of the British Army
 * Why? Its commonly assumed Wavell was first hand but he didn't get to EEF until later in the war. He based his history on Falls.
 * Hi, Roslyn, I think you may have misunderstood what Jim means. I believe that he is referring to adding a wikilink for the author. I've added this now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Citation for Downes 1938, pp. 555 & 558 dont use an ampersand
 * Done
 * No. 1 (Southern) Suez to Kabrit HQ Suez - the first use of Headquarters (HQ) should be in full, then HQ can be used after that.
 * Done
 * Sweet Water Canal has an article and can be linked
 * Done
 * In the background section some locations are linked others are not Kabrit - Ferdan - Kantara (disamb page) Sinai - Katia (disamb page) El Arish they should all be linked even if that adds red links. Check through for other place names that need linking
 * Have unlinked places to disamb pages
 * Raid links to the Sinai and Palestine Campaign instead of Raid (military)
 * The idea of linking raid to Raid (military) was to give the reading the opportunity to find more information. But changing it to link to the Sinai and Palestine Campaign merely duplicates the link in the infobox. Can this be changed back?
 * Military units, formations and terms need linking battalion artillery etc
 * The battalions are Ottoman/German and the link doesn't include either armies. Artillery link added. Brigade link added
 * The two external links have nothing to do with the article
 * These are added information so the readers can understand other important events which happened about the same time.
 * Hi, given that these two external links are now used as inline citations, there is probably no need to include them in the External links section. I can see what Jim is getting at, the External links section is usually only used for website that aren't specifically cited in the article and which are very clearly linked to the topic. In this case, as they are already cited and are only loosely connected, they are probably not required. I'll leave it up to you to decide, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks I've cut the external links.--Rskp (talk) 08:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this needs a lot of work especially a good copy edit. I am happy to wait if the work is progressing or can quick fail and revisit it later. What ever your happy with just let me know.
 * I did request a copyedit and it was done to the extent that it was noted on the list as complete but not much happened. Not sure what to do about this.
 * There seem to be a lot of citations needed which I will work on - can I get back to you later on today about waiting or not?
 * Sorry I forgot to sign this --Rskp (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed citations. Not sure what you mean by 'needs a lot of work.' Can you elucidate? --Rskp (talk) 04:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Still reading through will restart with the Prelude section. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * On the copyedit question, it seems that the article was copyedited by a GOCE co-ordinator in June, but has had substantial changes and additions since then (diff). So that may be why the prose is rather uneven. I could try and go through some of this by the end of the weekend. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Some clarification tags added. Demiurge1000 has offered to try and copy edit over the weekend. Can I suggest if you don't mind returning to the review next week.Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've addressed the clarification tags as best I can but if these sources (which are the best I've come across) don't give details you would like, then I don't know what to suggest. --Rskp (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK will return after the CE. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Copyedit is ✅, my only outstanding concern is footnote 4 which might perhaps be linked from within the text in some way, but I don't think it's a major hurdle nor an obstacle to GA. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot Demiurge1000 for the excellent copyedit - the footnote has been more strongly linked to the text. --Rskp (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Passed GA Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)