Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Magersfontein


 * 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 -- Ian Rose (talk) 06:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Magersfontein

 * Nominator(s): Farawayman (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Socrates2008 and I have been doing a lot of work on this article and we believe it now meets A-Class criteria. Review and opinions would be most appreciated. Farawayman (talk) 08:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments See WP:SCROLL. - Dank (push to talk) 14:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done Socrates2008 ( Talk )  07:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "at Magersfontein hills": either "at Magersfontein Hills" (if that's a proper noun) or "in the hills near Magersfontein" (if it's not). - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done Socrates2008 ( Talk )  12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The prose is 50kB, so the lead probably needs a little more to adequately summarize this article, per WP:LEAD. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Expanded Socrates2008 ( Talk )  12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I fixed the link for Black Week. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Thank you


 * "foreign volenteers": volunteers - Dank (push to talk)
 * Fixed Socrates2008 ( Talk )  12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "decimated": this literally means originally meant the loss of a tenth, but many readers these days think it means "annihilated", and I see from the text that you're going for the latter sense. Best not to use the word at all, since people aren't sure what it means any more. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Dictionary definition seems to fit, but have changed one of the instances. Socrates2008 ( Talk )  12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, and I should have been clear that this one was a personal judgment call, because I can't find a recent style guide that dislikes the word. The "deci-" in the word and the original meaning tend, IMO, to confuse the issue enough so that people aren't positive what it means.  Even without that problem, the meaning varies in practice from "more than half" to "all but a tenth" to "almost all".  In this case, if I understand correctly, all but seven were casualties. - Dank (push to talk) 13:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Nevertheless, his army drove the Boers out of their defensive positions at Belmont, Graspan and the Modder River, and advanced to within 16 miles (26 km) of Kimberley. The Battle of Modder River temporarily exhausted both sides, with the British having lost a thousand men, killed and wounded in these three battles.": don't jump around. That is, you mention 3 engagements, then the result of the advance, then you mention the last engagement, then the consequences of all 3 engagements.  It's easier to digest if you keep it linear, something like: "Nevertheless, his army drove the Boers out of their defensive positions at Belmont, Graspan and the Modder River, at the cost of a thousand casualties.  Both sides were exhausted, and the British stopped their advance within 16 miles (26 km) of Kimberley." - Dank (push to talk)
 * Done Socrates2008 ( Talk )  12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Methuen was forced to delay at the river crossing for several days while supplies and reinforcements were brought forward and the railway bridge (which the Boers had previously blown up) was repaired. In addition, the need for troops to protect his extended supply line from Boer sabotage was essential.": I think this is what you mean, but I'm not sure: "Methuen was forced to delay at the river crossing for several days while supplies and reinforcements were brought forward, a railway bridge destroyed by the Boers was repaired, and fresh troops were brought in to protect his extended supply line from Boer sabotage." - Dank (push to talk)
 * Rewritten Socrates2008 ( Talk )  12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "The Boers in turn, were badly shaken ...": I can't be sure since this is British English; "in turn" usually has a sense of sequential actions in AmEng. "The Boers were also badly shaken ..." - Dank (push to talk)
 * Done Socrates2008 ( Talk )  12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Also at Ladysmith": At Ladysmith. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Done Socrates2008 ( Talk )  12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Their total force numbered 8,500 fighters, with camp-followers ...": not sure if you're including the camp followers in the total. (No hyphen in "camp followers" in AmEng, not sure about BritEng.) - Dank (push to talk)
 * Done Socrates2008 ( Talk )  12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "crescent shaped": crescent-shaped
 * Sorted Socrates2008 ( Talk )  12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "straddling both the road and the railway line, to which Methuen's advance was bound": "both" is a tough word to get right. Roughly speaking, if the reader expects that the advance would be able to come either way and wants to know that both are blocked, "both" is good.  If the reader doesn't have that mental picture, then "both" is probably redundant here.  "Bound" doesn't sound like a good choice to me, but it might be the BritEng language barrier again.  And I wouldn't say my destination was a road if I was walking along the road. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Done Socrates2008 ( Talk )  12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "was 2-mile (3.2 km) long": was 2 miles (3.2 km) long - Dank (push to talk)
 * Done Socrates2008 ( Talk )  12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "North-Easterly": north-easterly (I think). - Dank (push to talk) P.S. Looking at the map of the battlefield, I'd describe the direction of the fence as north-northeast. - Dank (push to talk) 22:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done - moved the fence to run north-northeast! Farawayman (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This was almost all in the first section and first subsection, so there's more to do here than I have time for. You can ask for copyeditors (and you may need to offer to swap favors) at WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests or WT:MILHIST or on this page.
 * Done - requested a further independent ce from the Guild.  Farawayman (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll check back later. - Dank (push to talk) 21:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I will be starting copy edits tonight and will try to be done some time tomorrow. -- Diannaa (Talk) 02:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Diannaa - thanks for the Copy Edit! Farawayman (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I did another pass today, and also tidied up the references. Don't be surprised though if Dank finds some more stuff to do; he is wise. -- Diannaa (Talk) 17:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Truth. Here's an actual photo. - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought you looked more like this. I must have a bad internet connection. - Diannaa (Talk) 01:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What's the thinking on "Scholtz Nek (-28.91156°N, 24.70757°W) and Spytfontein (-28.88223°N, 24.68337°W)"? In general, if people want technical details on anything, such as the coordinates of a location, aren't they going to follow the link to the location?  I was watching Charlie Rose's recent interview of Jimmy Wales tonight; the one thing Charlie complained about was too much extraneous stuff (if I understood him rightly).  Do these locations fail notability requirements for a stub? - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * People seem to have different opinions on this - personally I don't mind it, but others seem to dislike it. There are many FA articles that use this format, but if it troubles you, a note might make this more acceptable (e.g. Siege of Kimberley)  Socrates2008 ( Talk )  12:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, please move it to a note. See MOS:ICON: "Do not use icons in general article prose."  Chicago doesn't approve either, although I can't find a good quote at the moment. - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Coordinates moved from text to notes section as recommended. Concur with the logic and the need for the move. Farawayman (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've done another copyedit of the introduction, the first section and the subsection after that; new problems were introduced in recent editing. I can now:
 * support just those sections. I haven't looked at the rest, except for the collapse-box that's still there and shouldn't be per WP:SCROLL. - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed the "Orders" section which used to be in a collapsible text box. The gist of the orders are already contained in the text in the "British Plan" section.  Farawayman (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Commments:
 * Comments: Looks quite good to me. I have the following comments, which are mainly just style and presentation nitpicks:
 * is there are way to split the lead into maybe three paragraphs? Currently the first paragraph is quite long;
 * Fixed by Socrates. Farawayman (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Reinforcements arrive section, this sentence needs a citation: "The gap created by the hurried withdrawal of the Highland Brigade was filled by the Gordons and the Scots Guards";
 * Fixed. Farawayman (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Strategic consequences section, "politicians in England" - should this be "politicians in Britain?";
 * Sorted Socrates2008 ( Talk )  10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Footnotes subsection, some of the notes end with full stops and some don't - should be consistent (I suggest that they should all have them);
 * Sorted Socrates2008 ( Talk )  10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Footnotes subsection, I suggest replacing  with as this will mean the Footnotes appear the same size as the Citations;
 * Sorted Socrates2008 ( Talk )  10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Citations sometimes you have "Conan-Doyle" and then other times "Conan Doyle" (hyphen or no hyphen) - should be consistent;
 * Sorted Socrates2008 ( Talk )  10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Citations some have years while others don't, is there a reason for this (some editors only use years to differentiate mulitple works by the same author);
 * All citations standardised to include year of publication. Farawayman (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Citation # 26 "Gale & Polden, p. 61" - the full bibliographic details don't appear in the References section;
 * Sorted Socrates2008 ( Talk )  11:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Citations you have "Gale & Polden" and then "Gale and Polden" - should be consistent
 * Sorted Socrates2008 ( Talk )  10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Citation #27 "Pakenham, p. 203" has no date, but Citation # 11 "Pakenham (1979), p. 199" has a date - should be consistent if the same work;
 * Sorted Socrates2008 ( Talk )  10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Citation # 50 "De Villiers", but in the References "de Villiers" - needs consistent capitalisation;
 * This is a quirk in Afrikaans/Dutch where the "De" is capitalised when then first name is not mentioned, but is lowercase when preceeded by a first name. Socrates2008 ( Talk )  10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the References, I suggest differentiating the two Maurice works (both of which have the same year of publication) by using "(1998a)" and "(1998b)" in both the short citations and the full bibliographic details;
 * Fixed. Farawayman (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the References Tufnell appears out of alphabetical order;
 * Sorted Socrates2008 ( Talk )  10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the References section, the Kruger work's title should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS, e.g. "Good-bye Dolly Grey: The story of the Boer War" should be "Good-bye Dolly Grey: The Story of the Boer War"
 * Sorted Socrates2008 ( Talk )  10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the References section, the Knight et al work should have an endash in the title for the year range, i.e "1876–1902";
 * Sorted Socrates2008 ( Talk )  10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the References section, the two websites (Pipetunes and BritishBattles) shouldn't be listed, they should simply be linked through the Citations where they are reffed with inline citations;
 * Sorted Socrates2008 ( Talk )  10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * at the end of the References section there is a large amount of whitespace on my screen, this is because of the commented out list of works not specifically cited. I sugest just simply removing these works, or adding them so they appear in the Further reading section;
 * Sorted Socrates2008 ( Talk )  10:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Further reading section, Cowan appears out of alphabetical order. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC
 * Sorted Socrates2008 ( Talk )  10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Enjoyed the article! A few minor comments:

Advance to attack:
 * "A drizzle started..." "In preparation for the attack, the soldiers bivouacked in heavy rain..." It would be clearly possible to have both drizzle in one place and heavy rain 3 miles away, but it read slightly oddly, particularly as later in the section "the rain increased to a downpour".
 * Anomaly corrected. Farawayman (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "the lyddite explosions" - this is the only mention of lyddite in the article; worth either explaining what lyddite was, or linking the term.
 * Valid point - linked. Farawayman (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Warning, a really petty quibble coming(!): "The thunderstorm and the high iron ore content of the surrounding hills played havoc with compasses of the officers appointed to navigate" - I think it played havoc with all of the compasses, not just those belonging to the navigators! :)
 * Changed to say played havoc with compasses and navigation. Farawayman (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * " the British had no time to reform from their compact quarter columns into fighting formation" > "a fighting formation"?
 * Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Battle: Scandinavian volunteers: Losses: Hchc2009 (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "but this action was soon blocked by re-deploying Boers" - does this mean it was blocked by Boers, who happened to be redeploying, or by the Boer general deciding to re-deploy Boers?
 * Clarified, "...blocked by the re-deployment of Boer elements." Farawayman (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * " The only movement at that time was Lt. Lindsay, who managed to bring the Seaforth's Maxim forward to provide a degree of support fire." I'm reading this as Lt Lindsay doing this personally, on his own; am I understanding this right?
 * Ambiguity clarified - "....team lead by Lt Lindsay....." Farawayman (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Methuen ordered all available artillery to provide support fire" > "supporting fire"?
 * Not sure if this is correct, "provide support fire" is an accepted military term? Second opinion would be appreciated please.  Farawayman (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to fire support. Socrates2008 ( Talk )  07:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "However, as with the preliminary barrage..." Worth moving the "however" to the middle of the sentence.
 * Concur - modification made. Farawayman (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I found the first paragraph, whilst useful background, jarred with the flow of the battle narrative. It might fit better earlier in the article?
 * Concur - re-stated this initial section on the formation of the Corps as a note, where it originally was. Farawayman (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Approximately half of the corps (refer Order of battle)..." > "refer to the Order of battle"?
 * Fixed. Farawayman (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "the Highland Brigade amassed a killed, wounded, and missing loss of 747 men." This read oddly to me. Could you say "suffered total casualties of 747 men"?
 * Re-stated to make it read more clearly, but retained reference to killed, wounded and missing - because "total casualty" figures do not necessarily always include all three of these categories.  Farawayman (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The poem probably needs a comment in the main text. e.g. "Criticism was published in the national papers, for example..."
 * Added an introductory sentence. Socrates2008 ( Talk )  09:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I particularly liked the picture of the observation balloon, by the way - fascinating photo!
 * Hchc2009: Thanks for these pertinent comments! Farawayman (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, by the way! Hchc2009 (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments by NJR_ZA (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good and a very nice read.
 * Scandinavian volunteers (refer to the Order of battle) was ordered hold a forward position > ordered to hold
 * Fixed. Farawayman (talk) 05:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Had another read through and it looks good. You have addressed all the issues raised here. Good balance of information between the parties involved. Prose is easy to read and well referenced. All the major events and people relevant to the battle is covered. ---NJR_ZA (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2010 (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.