Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Bardia/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:23, 19 June 2010.

Battle of Bardia

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Re-nomination. The Battle of Bardia was fought over three days between 3 and 5 January 1941, as part of Operation Compass, the first military operation of the Western Desert Campaign of the Second World War. It was the first battle of the war in which an Australian Army formation took part, the first to be commanded by an Australian general and the first to be planned by an Australian staff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye7 (talk • contribs)
 * A FAC of yours has recently been archived, and FAC instructions state that you'll have to wait for two weeks before nominating another article, unless you get permission from a FAC delegate to start another FAC sooner. Did you get that permission? Ucucha 00:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seeing as Hawkeye has had no less than seven successful FACs in recent times and a further 17 successful WP:MILHIST A class nominations, that seems a bit unnecessary - he isn't a blow in spamming nominations! Nick-D (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said Nick-D.  Aaroncrick  TALK 08:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with letting this one run, because his recently archived FAC (MacArthur) was an enormous undertaking, and its next FAC may take some time to prepare. But ... considering the backlog, reviewing half a dozen other articles (not just MilHist) would help-- a lot of reviewers put a lot of effort into MacArthur !!! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 11:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment none of the harvnbs for references to Playfair (1954) work. Mm40 (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Had to dump the HTML to see what was going on. but fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for that. Mm40 (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Proofread done - one very minor change made (removal of a colon in a time reference). Didn't notice any spelling mistakes. I'd be unable to spot any errors in designating, for example, numbers to denote the bodies of men (battalions/regiments) involved. --bodnotbod (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: The Chapman book lacks an ISBN. It is 0-909439-12-8. Otherwise, all sources look OK, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Good Article, but i have to agree with Abraham, B.S.. There is a problem with Commonwealth-POV especially in the section describing the actual battle and with the sources. The movements of the Australian troops are described in extended details, mentioning a lot of names but there isn't much about the actions of the Italians. Otherwise well done. 217.235.48.164 (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am concerned about the sources used for this article. Of the twelve entries listed as references, not one is Italian or even non-Commonwealth; all are Australian or British. This raises questions about whether the article has been constructed accurately and from a neutral stand point. This is compounded by the fact that every photograph (excluding the maps) appears to have come from the Australian War Memorial's online collections, and the only ones related to the Italians is after they have been captured. Perhaps both of these are inevitable, but I would still like to know whether an effort has been made to consult alternate, non-Commonwealth sources? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with the photographs is the duration of copyright. My understanding is that Italian copyright is for 70 years. Whereas Australian copyright from before 1955 is expired. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough about the photographs (though post-1955 only applies to government photographs in Australia), but what about the sources? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can only read English, French and German, but I looked through the Italian wikipedia articles for sources with no luck. The best English source I had was Stockings, so I went through his bibliography looking for sources. Stockings used mostly British and German sources for his information on the Italians. Through his bibliography, I found three articles about the Italian Army in the Second World War - sorry, La Seconda Guerra Mondiale - by James J. Sadkovich. He's an American, so doesn't count as an alternate, non-Commonwealth source, but it led me to the Italian Official history, La prima offensiva britannica in Africa settentrionale. I found a copy in the War Memorial. I can have a look at it if you think it would improve the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, sounds good. Are there any Italian sources that have been translated that you could perhaps have a look at? Also, something in German would still be an improvement to the complete Commonwealth bibliography. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added some references from La prima offensiva britannica in Africa settentrionale. It seems that the Italian historians read Playfair but not Long. I can have a look at Schreiber.Enno von Rintelen may have something to say. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Anything that will break the dominance of the Commonwealth sources and allow some diversity and balance is good. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added some information from a German source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support (reiterated) for promotion of this article to featured with respect to FA criteria 1a, 1d, 3 and 4; see Archive 1. Doug (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - one minor point: I believe your weapon sizes need a hyphen as they are adjectives (this has at least been raised in an A class review of one of my articles). In some places you have this and in others you dont. Other than that it looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support:
 * images seem appropriately licenced;
 * ext links all work;
 * there are no dab links;
 * images all have alt text (even though it is not a requirement);
 * Having read it a number of times now since its nomination, I believe the article to be comprehensive, well written, referenced and MOS compliant. — AustralianRupert (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This article needs a MOS and independent review. I saw a lot of WP:OVERLINKing (shovel, rum, sanitation, morale, well known countries as examples), I'm not certain if hyphens are handled correctly, and I saw several missing conversions (but can't relocate them now, so can't give example). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to leave some additional comments, but I'd prefer to do so after the independent set of yes has had a run over. Most of the comments have been from MH folks, of which I am one, and I do agree that it needs someone else. auntieruth (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to support this, but I have some questions.
 * 1) In the lead, my mind tripped over this sentence ( Bardia boosted the competence and reputation of the Australian Army, which would carry it through difficult fighting against formidable opponents.) I thought initially you meant it boosted confidence, but you talked about confidence boost later.  do you mean the experience increased competence and reputation?
 * 2) *Yes. I've removed the trailing clause so it merely says: "Bardia boosted the competence and reputation of the Australian Army" Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) In Italian section, I wasn't aware that guns had fuses. Could you clarify this for me?
 * 4) *Reworded to make it clear that I'm talking about the fuses for the ammunition. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) There is a need for another set of eyes on this. I fixed several typos in the Italian section, plus a few sentences that were repetitive.
 * 6) *Thanks. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Sandy mentioned conversions (above). She might mean, for example, 20 mm armour, or the like. I'm not sure those should be converted, since armour is measured in mm, not in inches.  Does it make sense to have 20 mm-armour (.79 inches)?  I don't think so.
 * 8) *Me neither. This was my interpretation of the style guide's requirement for conversion when different parts of the English-speaking world use different units for the same measurement too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) why is it called the Switch Line?
 * 10) *In military parlance, a "switch" is a trench connecting that branches off one forward trench and forms a secondary trench line behind another. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) What does this mean: Honners men had to chase the barrage?
 * 12) *A creeping barrage moves at a predetermined pace. The infantry follow the barrage. If they fall behind, they have to catch up - a very dangerous situation. I'd link creeping barrage but it is already linked in the previous sentence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what I meant on the conversions, but when I went back to check, I couldn't find the ones I did mean! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)


 * Support I think that this very comprehensive and well-illustrated article meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

wp:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No non-MilHist review, but we can't drag 'em in here ! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.