Wikipedia:Peer review/Gallipoli Campaign/archive1

Gallipoli Campaign
This peer review discussion has been closed. Since April a small group of editors - including myself - have been working on improving this article, adding references and expanding its coverage. The topic is not one that I am an expert in, so I would like feedback from the community about what needs to be done to take this towards GA and beyond. Thanks, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D
It's good to see this important article in excellent shape. I'm no expert on this topic either (far from it, in fact), but I have the following comments:
 * A caption for the infobox picture explaining what each of the photos is would be a good idea
 * Thanks for the review. I've added something along these lines, although it is difficult because the image itself doesn't identify the component images. I have a bad feeling that the image itself will need to be removed at a higher review because the licence probably isn't appropriate (i.e. it doesn't identify the copyright status of the component images). Unfortunately the creator/uploader seems inactive now. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that the 'background' section provide some brief material on the (probably avoidable) outbreak of war with Turkey and the status of this fighting in early 1915
 * Yes, fair call. I will see what can be added, unless someone else beats me to it. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've added a bit on this. Please let me know what you think. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I added some more info about how the war developed b/n the Allied powers and Turkey following the declaration of war, including mention of the Caucasus Campaign, the Mesopotamian Campaign and Turkish operations against Egypt and Suez Canal in early 1915. Previously the article was fairly silent about these events and I think the reader may have been left unaware that fighting was going on b/n the belligerents during this period in other theatres. If you get the chance pls review and let me know if it is effective / accurately summarises the events or if you think it needs to be reworked / adds undue weight. Also mentioned Russian request for a demonstration as I could seem to see that anywhere in the article. Do this work where I have put it. Anotherclown (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Were conditions really "hot" on 17 February 1915? This area gets very cold in winter.
 * I've tweaked this to "harsh", although the source (Gilbert) uses the word "heat". AustralianRupert (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "With the support of naval gunfire, the Ottomans were held off throughout the night." - it's not clear who the naval artillery was supporting here (the Anzacs, I presume)
 * Reworded, does this make it clearer? AustralianRupert (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "the Allied units became separated as they felt for the flanks " - I'm not sure what 'felt for the flanks' means in this particular context (were the troops looking for gaps in the Ottoman positions?)
 * Yes, fair call. Reworded, I think it should be clearer now. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "The dead included a stretcher-bearer, John Simpson Kirkpatrick, whose efforts to evacuate wounded men on a donkey while under fire, became legendary amongst the Australians at Anzac and later resulted in his story becoming part of the Australian narrative of the campaign." - you might want to note the finding of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeal Tribunal earlier this year that Simpson performed essentially the same duties as the other stretcher bearers of the unit he was serving with (which doesn't mean that he wasn't brave; they were all brave - see page 184 of the Tribunal's report here, and there was also a detailed story in the Fairfax newspapers exploring this issue)
 * Not sure about this one, to be honest. I'm concerned that including too much of this might add undue weight. While Simpson clearly wasn't alone in his acts, he is the one that is mentioned the most. Nevertheless, I wasn't actually sure that I should mention him in the article at all because I was concerned that it would put too much of an Australian focus; in the end I decided to mention it, but only as briefly as possible, as I think many of our readers would expect it. The information about the Tribunal's investigation/decision is probably best on Simpson's article, IMO, but I'd welcome other opinions on the matter of course. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the material which follows after "Historians are divided about how they summarise the campaign's result" is a good summary of the weight of opinion on this topic: virtually everything I've read on the campaign judges that it was a clear defeat for the Allies, with many authors arguing that the campaign was doomed to defeat. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a bit more on this. I'm not sure if this addresses your point, though. I appreciate you taking a look at this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Palmeira
Legacy might be extended beyond the national impact to the military thinking subsequent to the failure. This bit is a terse summary:

''The Gallipoli fiasco of 25 April–20 December 1915, during World War I, had engendered a belief among most of the armed forces of the world - the United States Marine Corps for reasons of service self-preservation excepted - that in modern war against modern defenses, amphibious assaults cannot succeed. This belief persisted throughout the interwar period.''

For example, USAF historical study explores that impact a bit on page 2 with a search on "Gallipoli 'amphibious landings' site:.mil" showing a number along the same line. This USMC analysis might prove useful. If I recall that belief in the interwar period has been attributed to having to move very fast from a small base in developing amphibious technology/techniques absolutely necessary in the Pacific—even if the Marines had always disagreed with that belief.Palmeira (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, good suggestion. I've added a bit on this now, although I added it to the "Military repercussions" section. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good place for it and "enough said" in a piece about the event itself. Looks good overall. Palmeira (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * added a brief sentence on the fact Gallipoli was studied by the Brits prior to the Falklands in 1982 also. Anotherclown (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A "top-of-the-head" on this, but "Gallipoli lessons" apply to any ground force projection into hostile territory and have been studied as such by those planning non-amphibious operations as well. Monty should probably have paid a hell of a lot more attention to Gallipoli before trying such a complicated game for the bridge that was made far too far for many of the same "Murphy" causes. At the same time some have misapplied its "lessons", for example, ignoring the fact defensive weapons generate offensive counter weapons as I think one of my refs above noted. Palmeira (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)
 * "Dardanelles Campaign'": Don't link bolded words in general, but particularly not in the lead, per WP:BOLDTITLE. You and I know that the garish blue is just an artifact/artefact of bolding and linking, but for the typical reader, it looks like we're singling out one word in the lead as being particularly important for some reason.
 * "took place on the Gallipoli peninsula in the Ottoman Empire (now Gelibolu in modern day Turkey)": took place on the Ottoman Empire's Gallipoli peninsula (now Gelibolu in Turkey)
 * "A joint British and French operation": why link one and not the other? - Dank (push to talk) 20:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "The attempt failed after eight months of heavy fighting and many casualties on both sides; the force was finally evacuated.": maybe: The invading force withdrew after eight months of heavy fighting and many casualties on both sides.
 * "one of the greatest victories of the Ottomans during the war and is considered a major failure by the Allies. / The battle resonated profoundly among all nations involved. In Turkey, it is perceived as a defining moment in the history of the Turkish people—a final surge in the defence of the motherland as the ageing Ottoman Empire was crumbling.": That says that it was an important victory, four times in three sentences.
 * "laid the grounds": Neither the Cambridge Dictionary nor Oxford Dictionaries gives "groundwork" as one of the meanings of "grounds"; what does Macquarie say? - Dank (push to talk) 00:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Howdy - AR is off playing silly buggers with soldiers in the bush for a few weeks so I made a couple of changes based on these cmts. There were a couple I wasn't sure about so I might leave them until he returns. Thanks for having a look. Anotherclown (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks AC. - Dank (push to talk) 22:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Question The page looks in pretty good shape but are there any plans to reduce the parts describing battles to summary paragraphs and move the narrative to the seperate pages which are linked?Keith-264 (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday Keith. I hadn't planned to do anything like that unless other editors think its too large. Article is only approx. 113 kb which I don't think is too large for a substantial topic like this one (quite a few far larger GAs out there). Not sure about what AR is planning though. He is going to be out of comms for a few weeks so might need to wait to hear what he thinks. Anotherclown (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just curious how far you're going, wht with the seperate pages existing, some are quite substantial.Keith-264 (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)