Talk:First Battle of Dernancourt/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 03:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I will review this for GA over the next few days. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Initial suggestions: G'day, nice work. I have a few suggestions, below: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * in the Background section, I wonder if a little more context is necessary... for instance, perhaps the general war situation could be clarified a bit more, explaining what the German Spring Offensive was. It probably could be done in one to two sentences, so it wouldn't unbalance the article, IMO;
 * ✅ let me know what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * in the infobox, is "decisive" how the sources describe this result? If not, it is probably best just to say "Allied victory"
 * ✅ probably an overstatement.
 * Dernancourt is overlinked in the Background section
 * in the Background, "the remaining two brigades of the 4th Division...": perhaps add the designations here. For example, " the remaining two brigades of the 4th Division – the 12th ad 13th – ..."
 * in the Background, perhaps the dispositions of the 13th Brigade could also be mentioned
 * "holding its sector with two companies in a series...": suggest wikilinking Company (military unit) here
 * "Albert-Amiens road": should have an endash
 * "12th Machine Gun Company": possibly could pipe a wikilink to 4th Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)
 * should a link to this article (and any others) be added to the Campaignbox Spring Offensive (World War I) template? Doing so might help improve the accessability of the article, but I don't know if there has been a decision to only include certain battles on that template, or not
 * Not sure about that, it is pretty high level. Maybe 2nd Dernancourt would qualify, given its significance, but it is only a new campaignbox and I too am unclear about its intent.
 * are there any images that might be added to the infobox? This would help improve the visual appeal of the article (but it isn't a GA requirement)
 * I'm working on it, the AWM doesn't have many pics of Dernancourt (surprisingly), maybe a location map, but probably won't get it done for this review.
 * this one might possibly work for the Aftermath: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * one of these might possibly work for the infobox: or  AustralianRupert (talk) 07:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I did look at those, but they are of the 5 April battlefield I believe, which varies a bit from 1st Dernancourt. I'd move the bridge one up, but I think it is best in the body to illustrate the fighting at the bridge. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 09:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Blast, you are right. Oh well, I guess they are there for 2nd Dernancourt ... nudge... ;-) Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "File:AWM A01059 Aerial view of the Dernancourt battlefield.jpg": on the image description page it says date unknown, but the AWM appears to provide a date of 30 May 1918
 * "S.O.S. line" might need clarification
 * ✅ Added a note and reference explaining what they were.
 * I'd suggest maybe making "Allied dispositions" and "German plan of attack" third level headers underneath a "Prelude" second-level header (not really required, though)
 * Good suggestion ✅
 * "By this time, the troops of the 12th Brigade had been "moving, marching and fighting for three days and three nights almost without sleep", and were in...": the quote here might need in line attribution
 * I've closely cited it to Bean, which involves subsequent repetition of the same footnote, but that's ok I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "along the railway line were glaringly obvious": I'm not sure this sentence is necessary, but if you think so I'd suggest potentially attributing the opinion or rewording it slightly as it seems close to editorialising
 * I've attributed it to Deayton, and dropped the "glaringly". It's line ball, and he is pretty disparaging, talking about "even more apparent" shortcomings.
 * Military Operations France and Belgium, 1918: March–April, Continuation of the German Offensives by Edmonds, Davies and Maxwell-Hyslop might have some more information that might be useful for this article. Do you know if you have access to it? If not, Keith-264 might be able to help
 * A good idea, my state library has a copy. Probably have a look before an ACR nom.
 * were there any battle honours awarded as a result of this battle?
 * Hard to say, possibly Ancre 1918, but I wouldn't know where to find confirmation. Any ideas? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably not Ancre 1918, which was for the fighting in April, I think: . Maybe "Somme 1916, '18"? I think  might have some info based on their work on Battle and theatre honours of the Australian Army. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I discovered that my state library has Battle Honours of the British and Commonwealth Armies by Anthony Baker, which I'll go in and take a look at before an ACR nom, along with Edmonds et al. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No dramas, seems like a good plan. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Military Operations France and Belgium, 1918: March–April, Continuation of the German Offensives by Edmonds, Davies and Maxwell-Hyslop might have some more information that might be useful for this article. Do you know if you have access to it? If not, Keith-264 might be able to help
 * A good idea, my state library has a copy. Probably have a look before an ACR nom.
 * were there any battle honours awarded as a result of this battle?
 * Hard to say, possibly Ancre 1918, but I wouldn't know where to find confirmation. Any ideas? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably not Ancre 1918, which was for the fighting in April, I think: . Maybe "Somme 1916, '18"? I think  might have some info based on their work on Battle and theatre honours of the Australian Army. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I discovered that my state library has Battle Honours of the British and Commonwealth Armies by Anthony Baker, which I'll go in and take a look at before an ACR nom, along with Edmonds et al. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No dramas, seems like a good plan. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * G'day, I think I'm done for now. I'll take a couple of the points on notice for action before the ACR nom, as I need to get into town to take a look at some books. Let me know what you think of the new para in Background? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Too easy, those changes look good. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Criteria
 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):


 * 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):


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


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


 * 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':


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * I am happy that this article meets the GA criteria above, noting that there are a couple of minor issues raised that can be dealt with at or before a subsequent ACR. Beyond this, thanks for your efforts. Are you planning on writing the Second Dernancourt and Morlancourt articles? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rupert, I'm planning to do 2nd Dernancourt soonish, which is much bigger and more complex, not sure about Morlancourt though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Great to hear. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)