Talk:Middle East Command Camouflage Directorate/GA1

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 04:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 04:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead

 * filmmaker Geoffrey Barkas; the use of filmmaker is a bit confusing, replace it with something related to the context. Also being in the film industry is not the reason that he led the directorate
 * Filmmaker, or if you prefer film producer and director, is an accurate gloss describing his work before the war. It was the reason for his presence, as the army chose "artists" (painters, sculptors, filmmakers) for camouflage work, as they had done in the First World War. Have replaced the term with film director as a more familiar and short summary.


 * GSO2? Never explained
 * Linked Staff (military)


 * army-scale deception? What do you mean
 * Deception can be at any scale from hiding an individual soldier to making it seem, as in Operation Bertram, that a whole army is going to attack when and where it is not. If you can think of a better way of saying "at army scale" in a couple of words I'll be happy to go along with it.


 * battle of El Alamein; Mention in full, Second Battle of El Alamein
 * Added "decisive". The first "battle" was barely a skirmish; the "second" was a decisive turning point of the war and is rightly the one that is remembered by the name. We can use a footnote, but the wikilink does all the disambiguation if any is required.


 * The first para of the lead is bit confusing, the some context on films in brought. This would confuse the reader, also you need to immediately establish the notability of the directorate, I mean why it was formed, its objective etc.
 * First para now about role and location.


 * These operations saved lives; Whose lives?
 * British. Barkas p. 216 writes "and so to purchase victory at a lower price in blood", but obviously this is impossible to prove. It could be a footnote or documented as a belief assigned to Barkas, but I've removed the claim.


 * known simply as Camouflage? citation needed
 * Done.

Section 1

 * Jack Beddington; some context on his profession and nationality
 * Glossed.


 * he was rapidly drafted into; What do you mean by "rapidly drafted"?
 * The sentence at once explains that it was a "summary 10-day basic training course, followed by a camouflage course". That is certainly a rapid training for a staff officer.


 * I see that section 1 is named as "Foundation", but there is no context on the same. The para contains information about Barkas, not the directorate. Also data of Barkas is too heavy for this article and is out of context. I suggest you to cut some, and add something about the directorate. I mean, how Barkas helped in formation of the directorate etc.
 * I've done something different, which I hope is OK with you: I've retitled the section "Recruitment of a leader" which I think highly relevant, and renamed the following section "Foundation" which again probably suits it better.

Section 2

 * I placed a cn tag, resolve it.
 * Done.


 * What is Andes? A ship, mention the type (destroyer, cruiser, frigate etc.) and the country
 * Done.


 * New Year's Day 1941; change to "1 January 1941"
 * Done.


 * as an "operational requirement" by, promoted to "Director of Camouflage" with; change these into general prose, drop the quote marks
 * Done.


 * Lieutenant-colonel -> lieutenant colonel
 * Done.


 * Mention Cott's nationality
 * Done.


 * rank of Captain; just "captain"
 * Done.


 * Who is A. E. Upfold?
 * Glossed.

Section 3

 * Section 3.1;
 * bringing materiel for; remove italics on materiel
 * Done.


 * 6 miles of dummy railway; use conversion template for units, 6 mi
 * Done.


 * Section 3.2;
 * Peter Proud and William Murray Dixon; basic context on them is required
 * Done.


 * R.A.S.C. (transport corps) -> Royal Army Service Corps (RASC)
 * Done.


 * Proud ran other "schemes" to protect three critical resources; make it as general prose
 * Done.


 * bombed by the Luftwaffe; Italicize Luftwaffe as it is a German word, also mention that it was Nazi/German Air Force in braces
 * Done. However I think the gloss here is probably wrong, as the term is linked and will be familiar to readers of Second World War articles.


 * of the defending army -> of the defending troops
 * Done.


 * Peter Proud and Hurricanes are over linked
 * Done.


 * Section 3.3; All good

Sections 4–7

 * Rename the 4th column as "Usage"
 * Done.


 * Section 6;


 * army-scale physical deception? As above, what do you mean by army-scale, make it general
 * See reply above.


 * basic context on "Rick Stroud"
 * Glossed.


 * Section 7; It is an empty section, remove it.
 * Done.

References and sources

 * The format for references is to be—Barkas, 1952. p. 4. or so.
 * Fixed 2 strays.


 * Page ranges must have en dashes
 * Done.


 * Crowdy, Terry (2008) is never used, delete it or more it to "Further reading" section
 * Done.


 * The books used as sources must have ISBN numbers
 * Done.


 * Where is the source for Sykes, 1990?
 * Good catch, cited.


 * I suggest an infobox to be added, however this is out of GA criteria.
 * Done.


 * 39.4% violation, slightly possible violation, suggest you to rephrase
 * No idea how you got that. I get "Violation Unlikely 0.0%" using that link to the tool, whether Turnitin is on or off. I paraphrased all my sources except where I have given a direct cited quotation. In any case "slight" doesn't sound like an issue, all paraphrases must do that.


 * There is one dead link
 * Fixed.


 * Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 09:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 03:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the review, which has certainly sharpened up the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 03:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the review, which has certainly sharpened up the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the review, which has certainly sharpened up the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)