Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Operation Battleaxe
Self-nomination. I've expanded the article pretty heavily (I'm not done yet), but would like to get some feedback on what areas still need improvement thus far. Oberiko 15:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- I hope no one takes offense to my editing their comments, but I'm adding ✓'s to points that I think I've addressed. Oberiko 20:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Kirill Lokshin
[edit]Very nice, overall; a few points that stand out as needing some work, though:
- The lead could stand to be a little longer; it doesn't mention much about the operation itself. ✓
- "Casualties" should be part of "Aftermath", no? Putting them under one of the days seems a bit counterintuitive. ✓
- The section names could stand to be a bit terser. ✓
- Since the footnotes don't provide full bibliographical information, that section should be titled "Notes", and "Bibliography" changed to "References". It is, in any case, nearly impossible to navigate these sections if the authors are never mentioned in the notes, particularly when the titles are already given in shortened forms.
- Can the lone OOB link in the "See also" section be worked into the text somehow? That would allow you to get rid of that section. ✓
- Some of the external links seem of questionable scholarly value; and, if you're going to have that many, there probably needs to be some sort of logical ordering to them. ✓
Keep up the good work! Kirill 01:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Roger Davies
[edit]- Kudos for the map!
- I concur with Kirill about a longer intro. ✓
- Sentences are a bit long and complicated in places. (Many of the semi-colons could be replaced with points.)
- Section name are sometimes long. Perhaps consider replacing "Outcome of the second day and plans for the third" with "Outcome of Day 2 and plans for Day 3" etc (which is how days are referred to in the main section headers)? ✓
- Notes, references and further reading/bibliography do need attention. Perhaps short titles in "Notes"; full titles in "References"; and everything else in "Further reading"?
- Occasional AmEng spellings have crept in (defense, center, armored). I've changed these to BrEng.
- Times are handled inconsistently. Perhaps 24:00 clock throughout, with 05:00 for 5:00 etc? ✓
Fine stuff though. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Factotem
[edit]Very nice article, well worth pursuing. Some constructive criticism comments and questions...
- The references/bibliography really needs attention. Cites 4 and 6 don't even appear in the bibliography as far as I can tell. If they do, it just underlines the difficulty of viewing the sources.
- Is it standard for infobox stats to be cited? I don't think it looks good and the information is anyway provided and cited in the main article. ✓
- I think that the quote of Wavell's concerns is too big. Wouldn't this information be better worked into the narrative using your own words and supported with cites from this quote? ✓
- Do you think it worth while including a narrated (as opposed to a bare listed) order of battle for both sides at the start of the article, perhaps expanding on the plans section. I find this helps to place units that appear subsequently into context and aids in comprehending the battle narrative. As an example, the 2nd Queen's Own Camerons suddenly appear in the attack on Halfaya Pass, when the plans section earlier informed us that this was part of 11th Indian Brigade's task.
- Some of the sections are a little short (e.g. the 1st 2 on Day 2 of the battle). This comment was levelled at my work recently and whilst as an editor I prefer neat organised sections dealing with specific events, as a reader they do tend to break up the flow of the narrative. Can the sections be expanded or the narrative re-worked to merge them?
- "Numerous" breakdowns? Can you be more specific? Especially as the British suffered terribly from unreliabable equipment.
- Unfortunately no. While almost all sources cite large numbers of breakdowns, none of them provide any details as to the amount. Oberiko 12:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- IIRC correctly the Western Desert Force suffered terribly and repeatedly from its failure to press home attacks with coordinated combined arms actions in the way that the Germans did right from the invasion of Poland. Certainly here the separation of tanks from supporting infantry and artillery cost the Commonwealth forces dearly, especially in terms of armour. Is it worth including something about this in the aftermath section?
- General need for copyediting (some awkward sentences, redlinks, etc)