Talk:Invasion of Darfur/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 10:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Preliminary comments

 * Will look over this more thoroughly today or tomorrow, some quick points:
 * Generally shouldn't use ranks for commanders in the infobox per Template:Infobox military conflict
 * Done
 * Are casualty figures available to include in the infobox? If not, no dramas.
 * Added whats known. I was not able to find anything else on the expedition. Surprising really some good news in 1916, would have went down well, you would have thought.
 * Also are the key units involved able to be included in the infobox?
 * Thought about this but as its two company's of XX and one company of YY, considered it messy. As the company's are not known A or 1st Company for example. But what do you think?
 * Although not a MOS req I suggest adding place of publication to the refs (fairly standard req for academic work so may be of assistance to our readers doing their own research).
 * Done
 * Suggest removal of "Limited" in "Constable and Company Limited" as such terms are precluded per Template: Cite book.
 * Done
 * Fairly sure the full title for Falls and MacMunn is: "Military Operations Egypt & Palestine from the Outbreak of War with Germany to June 1917", so think you may be missing a part of the title here.
 * Done
 * Suggest inclusion of series title for Falls and MacMunn reference (i.e. Official History of the Great War Based on Official Documents by Direction of the Historical Section of the Committee of Imperial Defence). Anotherclown (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done
 * Some replies.Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Those changes look good to me. Just wonder if in the units section we could add "Fur Army" (or something more appropriate) so that there is an entry on both sides. Anotherclown (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2013 (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 with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
 * Disambiguations: no dab links (no action req'd)
 * Linkrot: no external links (no action req'd)
 * Alt text: Images lack alt text so you might consider adding it (not a GA req'ment - suggestion only).
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing (no action req'd).
 * Duplicate links: one duplicate link:
 * Burush

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Consider if this could be reworded: "The Anglo-Egyptian Darfur Expedition of 1916, was a military operation carried out by forces from the British Empire and the Sultanate of Egypt, to launch a pre-emptive invasion of the Sultanate of Darfur." Perhaps: "The Anglo-Egyptian Darfur Expedition of 1916 was a military operation by forces from the British Empire and the Sultanate of Egypt launched as a pre-emptive invasion of the Sultanate of Darfur."
 * Done
 * Typo: "The Sultan Dinar had already left before there arrival...", should be "...their arrival..."
 * Done
 * "The status quo remained until disputes started over what was the exact Darfur western boundary and who had "overlordship" over frontier districts...." → "The status quo remained until disputes started over what was Darfur's exact western boundary and who had "overlordship" over its frontier districts.''..." (or something like that)
 * Done
 * Should "anti government" be hyphenated?
 * Done
 * Missing word here I think: "The main was Fur Army..."
 * Done
 * "By 14 May Kelly had completed his preparations to advance to El Fasher and had gathered a force at Abiad consisting of sixty mounted infantry scouts, four companies from the Camel Corps with two Maxim machine guns of their own, and eight companies from the 13th and 14th Sudanese Infantry and the Arab Battalion." → "By 14 May Kelly had completed his preparations to advance to El Fasher and had gathered a force at Abiad consisting of sixty mounted infantry scouts, four companies from the Camel Corps with two Maxim machine guns of their own, eight companies from the 13th and 14th Sudanese Infantry and the Arab Battalion."
 * Done
 * "Both columns reached the RVP 17 May...", → "Both columns reached the RVP on 17 May..."
 * Done
 * Not really a fan of the acronym RVP as it seems like unnecessary jargon, even though you have correctly introduced the abbrev per the MOS - suggest removal as you don't use it often I would just use the word "rendezvous". (suggestion only)
 * Ws not that attached to it either. Done
 * "To the Anglo-Egyptian left Fur horsemen were seen gathering who were also engaged by the artillery at a range of...", consider instead: "To the Anglo-Egyptian left Fur horsemen were seen gathering and they were also engaged by the artillery at a range of..."
 * Done
 * "While he was organising the assault, Major Huddleston commanding the Camel Corps company..." do we know Huddleston's full name? If so it should be included per WP:SURNAME. If its not available though its not an issue.
 * Its not known there was another one, same regt etc killed later on the Western Front. I am positive its the same man but WPSYNTH and all that.
 * No worries at all, seems reasonable. Anotherclown (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Sultan Ali Dinar, with around 2,000 men, fled to the Jebel Marra mountains 50 miles (80 km) to the south-west of El Fasher...", consider more simply: "Sultan Ali Dinar fled to the Jebel Marra mountains 50 miles (80 km) to the south-west of El Fasher, with around 2,000 men..."
 * Done
 * Likewise: "Kelly's troops were, due to a lack of supplies and exhaustion, unable to immediately pursue him." → "Kelly's troops were unable to immediately pursue him, due to a lack of supplies and exhaustion."
 * Done
 * "Major Huddleston, with his own Camel Corps troops and..." Should just be Huddleston, removing rank at second instance per WP:SURNAME
 * Done
 * Some inconsistency in presentation: "Anglo-Egyptian" vs "Anglo Egyptian".
 * Think I have caught them all with the exception of the title. Propose moving when the review is closed to preserve links.
 * Happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "After the expedition, the independent country of Darfur, and its 1,000,000 inhabitants...", you have already given the figure of 1 million inhabitants in the background section so I think it might be redundant here again in the aftermath, suggest removing it. Consider instead: "After the expedition, the independent country of Darfur, and its inhabitants..."
 * Done
 * Ranks and first names not req'd here per WP:SURNAME: "In 1917, Sirdar Reginald Wingate became the British High Commissionaire for Egypt.[15] The commander of the Anglo Egyptian expedition, Lieutenant Colonel Kelly, became the first Governor of the Darfur province..."
 * Done


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All major points cited using WP:RS.
 * No issues with OR.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Although short most major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.
 * Level of coverage seems appropriate to me.
 * One minor question:
 * "Huddleston had discovered Dinar was in hiding at Kulme 50 miles (80 km) to the west...", do we know how he knew (I'm assuming basic intelligence work)? It might be an interesting inclusion. If its no available then of course it cannot be included.
 * No its not recorded anywhere that I could find.
 * That's fine. Anotherclown (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues that I could see.


 * 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:
 * Images look ok to me. All seem to be PD and have req'd information.
 * Captions look fine.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * This is a fascinating article about an episode I was unfamiliar with until I read your article, excellent to see Wikipedia continuing to produce such entries. Overall, this article is in good condition, just a few mostly prose and MOS tweaks to consider / discuss. Otherwise, fine. Anotherclown (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Think there all done now, article name excepted. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Changes look fine, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review.Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)