Talk:Battle of Lone Pine/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 08:28, 8 September 2012 (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 a couple of minor issues with reference consolidation:
 * . (Multiple references contain the same content)
 * . (Multiple references contain the same content)
 * . (Multiple references contain the same content)
 * Ekins26 (Multiple references are using the same name)
 * Fixed these, I think. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I got a couple more. All good now. Anotherclown (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Disambiguations: no dab links (no action required).
 * Linkrot: external links check out (no action required).
 * Alt text: Images lack alt text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not a GA criteria).
 * Added, but poorly. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues (no action required).

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Not sure about starting a sentence with "It" here: "It was part of a diversion to draw Turkish attention away from the main assaults against Sari Bair, Chunuk Bair and Hill 971, which became known as the August Offensive." Perhaps consider: "The battle was part of a diversion to draw Turkish attention away from the main assaults against Sari Bair, Chunuk Bair and Hill 971, which became known as the August Offensive."
 * Changed as part of a further adjustment to the lead. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For me the structure of the Prelude section seems a little counter-intuitive. Have you considered putting the "Military situation" section before the "Terrain"? It might introduce the reader to the topic a bit better. The reader is suddenly presented with the presence of ANZAC and Turkish lines but may not understand the reason for their existance until a couple of paragraphs later. Of course I know of no policy to back this up (suggestion only).
 * I think I decided to do it this way because it was the way Hawkeye and I structured the Milne Bay article. Anyway, I tried a number of times to rework this offline, but couldn't get it to flow when I turned it around. I think that the Military situation section flows into the Opposing forces section, but it doesn't seem to work if I move Terrain below that. I don't know, what do you think? AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see your point. The "terrain" section does introduce the readers to a couple of key geographic features that are mentioned in the "military situation" section so perhaps you're right. Anotherclown (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a unclear what you mean here: "In front of this, the Turkish line extended from the head of a gully known as "Owen's Gulley" by the Australians south for 400 yards (370 m) towards the neck of Bolton's Ridge and continued south along a spur called Sniper's Ridge." Do you mean the Australians had extended the Turkish line of trenches following their capture?
 * No, this was before the attack. The "by the Australians" bit is explaining that they were the ones who called it "Owen's Gulley"; the Turks probably had a different name for it, but it doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere. It is definately a convoluted sentence, though, so I tweaked the punctuation. Does this make it a little easier to understand? AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, that actually did make sense. I was just being dense. Revision looks good. Anotherclown (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Language here: "Walker did not approve of an attack at Lone Pine, let alone a mere diversion." To me using the construction "did not approve" suggests Walker had some sort of say in the matter - although as soldiers both you and I know he probably didn't. Perhaps consider: "did not favour" (minor nitpick of course).
 * Tweaked. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "via which reinforcements could advance", consider instead "through which reinforcements could advance"...
 * Changed. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Small units of Australians managed...", technically a "unit" is a battalion-size element. Perhaps reword to "small groups" or something similar.
 * Changed. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this is too colloquial "Due to concerns of shooting their mates..."?
 * Changed to "comrades", but I'm not sure it works. Mates has a better ring to it, I think, whereas comrades makes me think of blokes in fur hats drinking vodka. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * True. I just wonder if other readers are going to understand the usage though. Certainly happy to change it back if you feel it an issue. Not a warstopper. Anotherclown (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Missing word here: "into a melee as the soldiers attacked each with bayonets and grenades...", consider "...into a melee as the soldiers attacked each other with bayonets and grenades..."
 * Fixed. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Repetition here: "These amounted to positions in the communication trenches on the flanks of the position..."
 * Changed. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems an awkward construction: "making makeshift grenades...", perhaps consider rewording to "manufacturing makeshift grenades..." instead?
 * Yes, done. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Repetition here: "launched between the junctions between..."
 * Changed. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In the third and fourth paras of the aftermath you mention a stalemate developing. This is either a little repetitive or its a little contradictory. Presumably if a statlemate is developing in the first paragraph it has continued in the second? Could you possibly reword one?
 * Done, I think. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks better. Anotherclown (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All major points cited using WP:RS.
 * Consistent citation style used throughout.
 * No issues with OR.
 * You might consider adding the ISSN for Wartime Magazine - (ISSN 1328-2727).
 * Is an OCLC available for Bean from World Cat?
 * Done both of these. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Major points are covered without going into undue detail.
 * You might consider mentioning in the lead that the battle occurred during the First World War (suggestion only).
 * Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also in the final sentence of the lead you might consider mentioning the allied evacuation (suggestion only).
 * Added to the last sentence of the lead. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to include more details about Turkish strength than that of the Australians in the prelude section (ref sentence begining "Opposing the Australians at Lone Pine, were..."). I know you detail the attacking units further down in the "Battle" section but you might consider a sentence on this here - perhaps identifying the initial brigade that would make the assault and its approx strenght?
 * Moved it around a little. Not sure if works. Added estimated strength. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes thats what I was thinking of. My only concern now is that there is probably one too many 3rd level headings in the Prelude section (especially given that you don't use them in the other sections at all). Might I suggest merging the "military situation" and "opposing forces" sections back to a single section called "military situation"? Also you might consider adding a couple of 3rd level headings to the "battle" section (suggestion only). Anotherclown (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Had to move the images around a little. What do you think of the headings? I wanted to have one called "Lone Pine held", but couldn't find a way to fit it in after "Turkish counterattacks". AustralianRupert (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes those headings work well. Anotherclown (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues here AFAIK.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * All recent edits look constructive.
 * 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:
 * Images used are all in the public domain or licenced and seem appropriate for the article.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Overall this is an impressive article in my opinion. I am not very familiar with the details of this action, but it seems like a solid treatment of the topic without going into unnecessary detail. It is well written, well cited and balanced and is neatly presented.
 * Only a couple of points above to deal with or discuss before it can be promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thorough review. I've responded above, please let me know if you think there is anything else required. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking quite good. Only one minor point above. Anotherclown (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy with the improvements you have made - the article easily meets the GA criteria in my opinion so I'm promoting now. I have also gone a head a made a couple of changes to paragraphing and image placement - these may have been a little bold so pls check my work. If you don't think it works pls just revert. Well done again. Anotherclown (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)