Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Ismailia


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Promoted: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Ismailia

 * Nominator(s): Sherif9282 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I feel it's ready for A-Class. This is the first article I've submitted for A-Class review, and I believe it meets all five criteria. This article on a battle between Egyptian and Israeli forces during the final days of the Arab-Israeli War of 1973, is my first nomination for an A-Class review. It has recently passed GA and I hope to get it up to FA status eventually, so I'd really appreciate any additional constructive comments and suggestions. Thanks in advance for your input! Sherif9282 (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support A1, A2, A3 Oppose on completeness of research other wise A1 A2 and A3 are Supportable: Structure is good, neutrality is good, citations style is good, citations used are good.  Sourcing is incomplete: Journal Articles.  Fifelfoo (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Authors do not take titles as part of their names, "Gawrych, Dr. George W."
 * Fixed


 * No journal articles? Check scholar and other indexes, for example:
 * Mason "'The decisive volley': The battle of Ismailia and the decline of British influence in Egypt, January-July, 1952" The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 1991. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any journals that deal with the topic. The journal you cited is of another battle; the article being nominated is on a battle that took place in 1973, not 1952, and involved the Israelis not the British. --Sherif9282 (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into it! Changed to support. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Sherif9282 (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the referencing should be a little more thorough. Whilst the one-ref/paragraph is met, there are paragraphs with three different references at the end, some covering up to four pages in a given ref, and so tracking down exactly what cites what is difficult. A couple of other small things: I think "Operation Abiray-Lev" should be linked in the lead, and Ismailia described as a city there as well, it's not clear whether we're talking about a small or large settlement, or even something more different, like an area of some kind. I also think "One of them has the Soviet-made RPG-7 by his side, normally used by the Egyptians." needs citing. Other than that, looks good. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. I'll see what I can do with those refs. Unfortunately no article exists so far for said operation; it'll only be a red link in the leade. I'll also perform the other edits very soon. --Sherif9282 (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Battle_of_the_Chinese_Farm maybe? Not quite sure the overlap, but it would help for some context. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I've done that. I've also removed that part of the image caption since I can't find a ref for that specific claim. I've looked over the refs. Mostly, refs grouped at the end of a paragraph are reference for all or most of what is in the paragraph. In the background section, I'm using the ordinary, detailed accounts to provide a summary of the war's timeline, which is why refs in that section have a lot of pages in them. I'll try to replace them with pages or sources that provide short summaries instead, when I find them. --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * BritEng or AmEng would be fine, but I'm not sure which this is; "reorganizing", "armor" and treating "battalion" as singular suggests it's AmEng. - Dank (push to talk) 20:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are some hyphens that MOS says should be dashes, but I'm not touching them until the hyphen and dash rules have been clarified as a result of the current Arbcom case, which will take a month or two.
 * "Several measures decided upon were not implemented however.": Vague. I'd remove this and move the contents of the note to the main text. - Dank (push to talk) 00:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support for half of it on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, Battle_of_Ismailia. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've quickly skimmed over the edits and they look fine, might need some tweaking. I'll be giving a more comprehensive answer as soon as I'm free. --Sherif9282 (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So I've done some changes, the rest of the edits are good. Will you be continuing on the article from where you stopped? --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I won't have time to do the rest now, but I'll be happy to finish up after it gets to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a good article, but I have a couple issues:
 * "Sharon ordered the attack, but did not receive permission to launch an offensive in that direction." -- so they attacked w/o permission?
 * It's now clarified. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "The village was then occupied by a company of the 73rd Sa'iqa battalion, and the defenders received a platoon of reinforcements to compensate losses" is that an Egyptian brigade?
 * Yes. The prelude section describes the unit, and points out that they are Egyptian.


 * "Sharon only sent five tanks, and the attack by Raviv's brigade failed with heavy losses. Gonen and Bar-Lev were joined by Lieutenant General David Elazar, and ordered Sharon to renew the attack, this time transferring Reshef's brigade. Sharon opposed this however, and argued that if he succeeded in his mission, the Egyptian Second Army would collapse, thereby eliminating any Egyptian threat to the Israeli corridor and bridgehead. He claimed he could have already encircled Ismailia had it not been for Southern Command's hesitation. When his superiors remained adamant, Sharon bypassed the chain of command and contacted the Minister of Defense, Moshe Dayan, who called off any further attacks on the east bank. As a result, Sharon would be able to concentrate his attention and the efforts of his three brigades in the final push to capture Ismailia." - Raviv? Reshef? Who? "He claimed ... hesitation" did he claim this at the time or after the war?
 * I've removed any mention of Raviv (not being important to the article). Reshef had been mentioned several times before so the reader should be aware who he is by the time he reaches that section. I thought it was self-evident he made that claim during his conversation with Southern Command. I've tweaked it nevertheless, and do improve on it if you can. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Post cease-fire reconciliation", I noticed that you sourced it all to a single book. Does any other author mention this? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't found another source to that story at all, not even a passing mention, but the book used is a reliable one for sure. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I've taken long to reply. I'm quite stripped of time nowadays! --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Support – no obvious reason for otherwise, although I can spot a few minor imperfections here and there. Does the nominator want to know what they are? Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 09:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Co-ord comment: this ACR has been open for 41 days now. This well past the 28 day limit that is normally applied. As such, I intend to close this review in the next 48 hours. Currently there are only two clear supports. Unless there is another clear support, it will need to be closed as unsuccessful (per the guidance at WikiProject Military history/Academy/Closing an A-Class review a minimum of three clear supports is required for promotion). In the interests of achieving a successful outcome, I will wait 48 hours and will post a request on the main talk page asking for more input. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have closed this review as successful because it has achieved the minimum three supports and is past the 28 day review period. If there are further comments on the article (as indicated below), please add them to the article's talk page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.