Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Battle of Bardia/archive1
Resolved
[edit]- 2c: Fifelfoo (talk)
- Please check your citation of chapters in larger works, and volumes in works in series. for example with "Hasluck, Paul (1952) (PDF), The Government and the People, 1939–1941, Australia in the War of 1939-1945, Volume I," are you sure you don't mean "Hasluck, Paul, "The Government and the People, 1939-1941" in Australia in the War of 1939-1945 Volume 1...
- And if the chapters are authored by the author of the whole work, you don't list the chapter, you just list the whole work.
- The citations are correct. "The Government and the People, 1939-1941" is the title of the book; "Australia in the War of 1939-1945" is the series of which it is a part. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Many thanks :). I normally append [Series] when a series title doesn't contain the word "Series", but its really lovely to see stuff correctly cited, and the reason is listed below (you're a historian :). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- The citations are correct. "The Government and the People, 1939-1941" is the title of the book; "Australia in the War of 1939-1945" is the series of which it is a part. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- 1c: Fifelfoo (talk)
- Original research, use of Wavell 1946 to support non-trivial facts. Interpreting primary sources is the job of a historian, not wikipedia. Also I doubt Wavell's capacity to infer Italian motivations. (Wavell 1946, pp. 3000–3001)
- But I am a historian... but point taken. I'll add another reference. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- No worries. When we edit wikipedia we have to forgo our professional capacities. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- But I am a historian... but point taken. I'll add another reference. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Seriously concerned about the lack of scholarship after the 1960s. Please explain how you've exhausted the supply of potential sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, you're not alone there. The Second World War has not been a popular subject for Australian military historians, and very little work has been done on the Libyan campaign until very recently, when Stockings published his book. This book, which I highly recommend by the way, was been used in the preparation of the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've also used Garth Pratten's recent book. I think 2009 has to qualify as recent scholarship. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- It certainly does. I'm satisfied for 1c. I'll probably leave these comments here for a little bit, then transfer them to the Talk page for this FAC to clear the main FAC page. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I can confirm that very little has been written about this battle in recent years, and this was noted in many of the reviews of Stockings' book. There's been curiously little coverage of most Australian World War II campaigns since the official history; the historiography is dominated by the events of 1942. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- It certainly does. I'm satisfied for 1c. I'll probably leave these comments here for a little bit, then transfer them to the Talk page for this FAC to clear the main FAC page. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've also used Garth Pratten's recent book. I think 2009 has to qualify as recent scholarship. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, you're not alone there. The Second World War has not been a popular subject for Australian military historians, and very little work has been done on the Libyan campaign until very recently, when Stockings published his book. This book, which I highly recommend by the way, was been used in the preparation of the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Original research, use of Wavell 1946 to support non-trivial facts. Interpreting primary sources is the job of a historian, not wikipedia. Also I doubt Wavell's capacity to infer Italian motivations. (Wavell 1946, pp. 3000–3001)
alt text
[edit]Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks) but has a couple of problems:
A couple of phrases contain details that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and need to be moved to captions or removed, as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. These are "Australian" (in "Australian soldiers" (twice), "Australian soldier", and "Australian officers") and "Italian" (in "Italian soldiers").- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see how it's done; the edit didn't change this.Eubulides (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)- The earlier edit did. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed that.
However, that edit removed only the "Australian soldiers"; other entries still say "Australian soldier", "Australian officers", "Australian soldiers".Eubulides (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, the alt text looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed that.
- The earlier edit did. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
File:WesternDesertBattle Area1941 en.svg needs alt text that conveys the gist of the map to the reader who is presumably not an expert in the area. I suggest alt text that discusses the Jebel Akhdar, the Great Sand Sea, the Qattara Depression, the Mediterannean, the coastal road, the border between Libya and Egypt, Benghazi, Tobruk, Bardia, and how all these things hang together. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance. The alt text for the other map is quite good, by the way.- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
