Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Brevity


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

Operation Brevity
The article has undergone extensive work since it was last rated as a B, it now covers the subject more extensively, features new and better images and has been edited to death to spruce the grammar up and get rid of anything which was no needed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is very good per overall and I will support it after these minor issues are fixed. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * 1) Gott’s plan for Operation Brevity was to advance in three parallel columns. - this needs a ref, as well as: In the afternoon, A Squadron, 2RTR was ordered to conduct a reconnaissance patrol to Sidi Azeiz with its nine remaining cruisers.
 * 2) A reference is needed in the strength section of the infobox (especially for tanks inventory)
 * 3) Please use en dashes for page ranges in the refs, per WP:DASH.
 * 4) The "Footnotes" section should be placed before the "References" one.
 * Support: Meets all criteria now. --Eurocopter (talk) 07:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Does Gott's plan to advance in 3 parallel columns need a reference, given that the next paragraph details more exactly this plan, with sources? I'll leave it to Enigma to confirm whether the 2nd RTR patrol is sourced by the ref at the end of that para.
 * The ref posted in the paragraph should be also added at the end of this sentence. --Eurocopter (talk) 07:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The information in the infobox is simply a summary of sourced information given in the main narrative. Does the infobox figure need to be sourced as well? --FactotEm (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, to be closer to FA level. See also, Operation Camargue. --Eurocopter (talk) 07:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have made the changes as requested, including adding in a couple of extra citations just to make sure there is no area not covered. However i have not done point 3, after reading through the article you have linked to, well to be honest i have no idea what you need doing?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To explain, instead of pp 23-25 (hyphen) you need pp 23–25 (endash). You can insert an endash by typing . See dashes for other input methods. -- R OGER D AVIES   talk 02:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. Looks good. Cla68 (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Decent article. That said, a few comments:
 * I know some people aren't fans of essays in the infobox (I'm not one of them). However, would it be possible to briefly expand on "inconclusive" in the infobox under "results"?, since inconclusive is a fairly ambiguous term.
 * In ref #57, would it be possible to WL Operation Compass?, seeing as you've done it for the tank variants in ref #23.
 * Would it be possible to remove the "this map shows" in some of the image captions? It tends to make the image text a bit on the choppy side.
 * Would you happen to have a numerical strength of each force? Battalions can range greatly in size (especially in Africa, where units frequently went long periods of time without reinforcement).
 * In the infobox, under the "part of" section, shouldn't it be "Part of North African Campaign (World War II)" rather than the other way around?
 * There's a bit of inconsistency with regards to multi-ref formatting in the article. For example, ref #2 cites multiple sources within the same ref, while the block of 5 refs in "aftermath" all use separate sources.  Would it be possible to format them the same?
 * Other than that, looks good. Great work on this one! Cam (Chat) 06:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers Roger, i follow now!
 * Cam, the only reason i have made ref 2 etc a single citation is not that the info box is not cluttered up with them. I can easily change that if you want?
 * Just change that massive 5-ref bunch. It sort of does what you were trying to avoid (just for that one section.  I have no problem with double or triple cites). Cam (Chat) 17:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As for adding in the overall strength of each British battalion, there is no chance of that am afraid. There is just no information on that.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm able to take that in stride (I've encountered the same problem before). Cam (Chat) 17:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Excellent work! Cam (Chat) 04:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Support, with disclaimer and comments: As I say, I do not consider any of the above to be substantive issues. This is a well researched well referenced piece of work, and well done Enigma... --FactotEm (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am one of those responsible for editing this article to death, having copyedited it mercilessly, for which Enigma's patience in putting up with my constant 'heckling' is to be commended.
 * I see nothing substantively wrong with this article, but if it is to progress to FAC, and I see little reason why it shouldn't, then the following points might need addressing:
 * Smallish point - can we have movements marked on the map produced for this article?
 * Bigger point - I suspect that two of the images; Fort Capuzzo and the Halfaya Pass, will encounter problems with copyright. In particular the copyright notice from the source for the Halfaya Pass drawing stipulates that the image cannot be sold, and I believe that Wikipedia licensing of its content allows it to be redistributed even for commercial purposes.
 * Big'ish point - The aftermath section still only deals with Rommel's reinforcement of Halfaya Pass, whereas the Operation Battleaxe article (Operation Battleaxe section) credits Brevity with more influence in Rommel's defensive preparations and subsequent outcome of Battleaxe . I think these two need to be aligned more.
 * Big'ish point - having wandered through some of the web sites that deal with Brevity, a common theme is that it has been interpreted as an attempt to relieve Tobruk. I know that this is dealt with implicitly in the plans sections, which clearly states an intention to exploit towards, not relieve, Tobruk, but it might be worth including a short commentary on this in the aftermath section (along the lines of "Some sources state that Brevity was an attempt to relieve Tobruk [references], but Gott's plan was simply to...etc [refs]).
 * Small point - there are still some copyediting issues to be sorted. Mixed use of Kampfgruppe von Herff, and Kampfgruppe Herff, "...the Australian 9th Infantry Division and other allied forces fell back to the fortress of Tobruk,[14] while other British and Commonwealth force withdrew a further 100 miles..." is a little odd ("other" British forces, or "remaining" British forces?) , it surely cannot be right to start a sentence with lower case (". von Herff")? and some others that surely cannot escape the eagle eyes of really good copy editors. I think this is important as good copy editors are hard to come by, and if you want to make an attempt for FA, you should start looking for a really thorough copyedit now.
 * Tiny issue - I find the 5 refs for the British losses excessive. Do they refer to the individual sentences preceding, and if so can they not be distributed amongst them as appropriate?

Just to answer a few points quickly, dont have the time to respond to them all at the moment. After double checking The Rommel Papers, he notes that the defensive preperations made to the frontline was only done so after Operation Skorpian retook Halfaya Pass. The recapture of key terrain and lessons learnt from Brevity made him take action, perosnally i think it should be placed in a aftermath section for Skorpian. As for start a sentance without a capital letter, as i understand it under no circumstance is the 'v' in 'von' capatalied. If this is the case, the sentance will need to be played around with.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to be absolutely clear, in my opinion this is A-Class worthy. I'm only emphasising the 'review' element here, with a view to a possible FA attempt in the future. As far as I'm concerned you don't need to respond to anything here and now, either on this review page or in the article. --FactotEm (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have double checked, it appears the only exception for the 'v' in 'von to be capatlised is at the beginning of a sentance, my bad - have made the change.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments This is a very promising, well-researched, piece that still needs some work for FA.
 * Prose: The copy falls short of the "professional standard" required at FAC and is likely to encounter significant opposition there. It needs a spruce up by a copy-editor new to the article first. This will probably take about a day. Here as some specific examples:
 * Capitalisation: The Commander-in-Chief of the British Middle East Command > "The commander-in-chief ..."
 * Hyphenation: counter–attack > "counter-attack" (hyphen needed instead of endash)
 * Awkward phrasing: Threatened with being caught by German armour in open ground, the centre column was withdrawn.
 * Semi-colons: Libya were reinforced with the German Afrika Korps; two divisions under the command of General Erwin Rommel. Not really what semi-colons are for: either dashes or commas work better. This is one of several in the article (the Axis forces were now in; fought to a standstill outside of Tobruk etc).

-- R OGER D AVIES  talk 05:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources: Why is the 11th Hussar war diary a reliable source? Is it a verbatim proof-read transcript from the official war diary? It also needs a retrieval date and publisher information.
 * Sorry, but is there anything which makes it unreliable other then the fact its on the internet?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no automatic assumption of reliability in reliable sources so - especially on the internet where often anyone can edit, the credentials of a source need to be established. This also applies, to a lesser extent, to paper published works but though books from a well-known writer published by a generally respected publisher are usually assumed to be okay. So, the short answer is: yes, it's because it's an internet source and its credentials are unknown :) This will come up at FAC. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 08:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.