Talk:Battle of Mont Sorrel/GA1

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

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended other comments which, whilst not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "Mercer was wounded three time" - "times" . ✅
 * "At 1:00pm, German pioneers detonated a series of four mines near the Canadian forward trenches before the Germans attacked with six battalions. Five more battalions were in support and an additional six in reserve. When the German forces attacked," Insert the words in italics. ✅
 * "Owing to the . . . 3rd Canadian Division temporarily." - sentance uses "temporarily" twice. ✅
 * "However, some rockets misfired and did not burst resulting in an uneven assault whereby each unit moved from their starting lines at different times.[7] The four attacking battalions suffered heavy losses as they advanced at different times over open ground in broad daylight" - no need to say "different times" twice. ✅
 * "positions it had retreaterd to after" - spelling ✅
 * "British reinforcements & second German attack" - Do not use ampersands in headings .✅
 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I don't feel that the Background section adequately covers the situation in June 1916. It does not mention the impending Battle of the Somme (which had a direct effect on this battle) and does not give a casual reader any impression of the situation on the Western Front at this time. A brief summary of developments in the region during the first half of 1916 is important to set the scene . ✅
 * Added context as it relates to the Battle of the Somme and Battle of Verdun.
 * In a second but closely related point, the Background section leaps straight from Byng's planned attack to a German plan of attack without differentiating them in the text. ✅
 * I have moved the Byng plan into the German Offensive section. I have cleared things up with some paragraph transitions between para 1&2 and 3&4 of the German Offensive section.
 * The "German offensive" section needs an introductory sentance explaining that the Germans were also planning an assault ✅.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * The modern image of Sanctuary Wood should be on the right because as it is, it disrupts the text and second level heading below it. ✅--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Removing it is OK, although if it does become possible to reinsert it at some stage that would be nice.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I fully intend to reinsert the image after I have increased the amount of text in the aftermath section. Possibly after I identify which German cemeteries contain battle combatants. --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I fully intend to reinsert the image after I have increased the amount of text in the aftermath section. Possibly after I identify which German cemeteries contain battle combatants. --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Other comments
(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)
 * I'm not a fan of placing images on the right directly under third level headings as I feel it makes the article harder to read. However this is permitted in the MOS and I am certainly not insisting on the movement of all such images.
 * Moved 1st image down as there was space in the section to do so. Modern image of Sanctuary Woods was removed until it can be more properly fit in. --Labattblueboy (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there a campaign box into which this article might be inserted to give it slightly better context?
 * As it is a local conflict I do not know one. One could supposedly be created for Canadian Corps battle honours but nothing exists to denote it as an example of German attempts to tie down Allied resources prior to the Somme offensive. --Labattblueboy (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Finally, on the morning of 2 June" - no need for "finally", start the paragraph with "On" . ✅
 * " taken prisoner, becoming the most senior" - no need for "becoming" . ✅

On a more personal note, I was the editor who took Malcolm Mercer and Edwin Alderson to GA (a good 18 months ago now), and was disappointed then to see how poor this article was at that time. I am thus extremely impressed with the improvements made and am pleased to have to opportunity to review this piece. I don't believe the changes needed are too drastic and I look forward to passing this in the near future.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I spotted one additional issue:
 * "The peeks were the only portion" - Do you mean peaks? ✅
 * Otherwise I am happy to pass this article as a very nice presentation of a very little known battle. I enjoyed reading it and learnt quite a bit that I had not known before. Thankyou and well done--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)