Talk:First Battle of Gaza/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 17:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'll be taking this article for review. I should have my initial comments up within a day. Dana boomer (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- At this point, my biggest problem with the article is the length. At over 11,000 words, it is far longer than the maximum size recommended by WP:SIZE. And this word count does not include block quotes, indented material (such as the orders of battle) or numbered lists, which means that in reality, the article is several hundred words longer. Much of this extra bulk is due to the fact that there is twice as much information in the Background, Prelude and Aftermath sections as there is in the section about the battle itself. And much of this information is unnecessary. For example, "the 40,000 inhabitants of Gaza imported £10,000 of yarn from Manchester." - this information has no bearing on the battle, and it is given not once, but twice (in the Background section and in the Ottoman Army defences section). So here we have both unnecessary information and duplicated information. Until much of this is trimmed, I'm not seeing much point in conducting a full prose review.
- I removed the repeated phrase. Anotherclown (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- In skimming through sections of the article, I am seeing that a full check of the prose will be needed. Improper capitalization and punctuation are the main issues that I'm seeing. Hopefully most of this can be rectified while bloat is being trimmed, per the comment above.
- At this point, my biggest problem with the article is the length. At over 11,000 words, it is far longer than the maximum size recommended by WP:SIZE. And this word count does not include block quotes, indented material (such as the orders of battle) or numbered lists, which means that in reality, the article is several hundred words longer. Much of this extra bulk is due to the fact that there is twice as much information in the Background, Prelude and Aftermath sections as there is in the section about the battle itself. And much of this information is unnecessary. For example, "the 40,000 inhabitants of Gaza imported £10,000 of yarn from Manchester." - this information has no bearing on the battle, and it is given not once, but twice (in the Background section and in the Ottoman Army defences section). So here we have both unnecessary information and duplicated information. Until much of this is trimmed, I'm not seeing much point in conducting a full prose review.
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): 
- I am concerned about the high level of old sources used in the article. Whole swaths of the article are sourced to pre-1940s sources... Has scholarship not advanced at all about this topic?
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Do we have any information on the Aftermath for the Ottomans? The entire section is about the British POV, except for a brief mention of an Ottoman plane.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- There is a cleanup tag in the source section of File:AnzacMDwdAWM4-1-60-13A54.37.tiff
- File:Powles p.92 Gaza.jpg has a tag saying the image is not PD in the US, and may end up being deleted.
- I added the missing bibliographic details and tags. Seems to be PD to me as it was published in 1922 in NZ (so have added the PD-US-1923-abroad) tag. Anotherclown (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- At this point, I am placing the article on hold. There is significant work that needs to be done on the focus and prose of the article. When/if work is completed on those issues, I will turn my attention to a full review of prose, referencing, etc. Dana boomer (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- The nominator has requested that this review be closed, due to their ongoing topic ban. Does anyone have any problems with this? Anotherclown, I see that you have done some work on the article and made a couple of replies above, but I wasn't sure if you were planning to do all of the work needed to bring the article up to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Gday - I don't have a problem with this being closed. There are probably too many issues with this and the other two GAs and I don't think they are able to be resolved anytime soon. Anotherclown (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I am now closing this review. The above comments should at the very least be considered before the article is renominated at GAN, by whomever should wish to do so. Dana boomer (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
