![]() | Battle of Magdhaba has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi, this is quite an interesting article. I've done a quick review of this article and have the following suggestions (they are mainly related to style and presentation, as I don't know enough about content in this regard):
Anyway, I hope these points help. Cheers. AustralianRupert ( talk) 11:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes they are, thank you very much. -- Rskp ( talk) 05:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what a "fantass" is; it's not in my dictionary. Is it a piece of military equipment?-- Miniapolis ( talk) 20:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
ps I've just emailed the Museum to see if its possible to get a digital copy onto Wikipedia.
If there were no infantry in the battle who were they fighting reading the text in the Ottoman force section - At Magdhaba the garrison had been increased from 500 to about 1,400 Ottoman soldiers; there may have been as many as 2,000, consisting of two battalions of the 80th Infantry Regiment (27th Infantry Division, attached to the 3rd Infantry Division for most of 1916). The 2nd Battalion, commanded by Izzet Bey (about 600 men) and the 3rd Battalion, commanded by Rushti Bey, were supported by a dismounted camel company. Two squads from the 80th Machine Gun Company Jim Sweeney ( talk) 09:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
World cat lists 2 publishers in 1938 or whenever it was; Vorhut-Verl, and another publisher which you have cut. I don't know this reference, I have merely added details from the world cat as they appear there. Please reinstate this information, unless you know which publishing house the edition quoted was produced by. -- Rskp ( talk) 06:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Why replace 3 mounted brigades and 1 camel brigade with ~6,000? In this infobox, what does ~ mean? -- Rskp ( talk) 03:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division has been used to prevent edit war between ANZAC and Anzac. The source for the name is the Australian War Memorial which uses ANZAC [1] Jim Sweeney ( talk) 05:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The Battle honours section heading needs to be changed suggest awards or similar as Battle honours were awarded to all the regiments who took part. and its clear from the quote that he's talking about medals. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 05:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The numbers killed do not compute; 5 officers + 17 ORs = 12??
Anybody like to improve on what stands? "British casualties may have been as high as 163 of 146 known casualties, twelve were killed and 134 were wounded. Five of the killed and seven of the wounded were officers, while seventeen other ranks were killed and 117 wounded." Ned de Rotelande 10:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
G'day, Rskp, the Battle of Magdhaba article appeared on the main page yesterday. During its time, an editor raised an issue about the British Empire casualties on the talk page. I have responded to this and I think I have resolved part of the situation (the break down of killed and wounded for the 146 number), however, I was not able to work out the comment about British casualties possibly being as high as 163. Can you please add a citation to this, or clarify it? Additionally, while trying to respond to the question, I found that the infobox doesn't quite match the prose. For the Ottoman casualties, currently the infobox says: "97 dead, 300 wounded, 1,282 prisoners". However, the prose in the Casualties and captures section says "Over 300 Ottoman soldiers were killed; ninty-seven were buried on the battlefield, and forty wounded were cared for". As such, I have put a "clarification needed" tag in the infobox. When you get a chance, can you please check your sources and adjust the infobox how you see fit? Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 22:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
As to the casualties, from memory I revisited this section of the article some weeks ago during preparation for submission for a GA (which the article failed because of an edit war) and carefully edited the casualty section to reflect the sources quoted. From a quick glance at the history of this article it would appear Jim Sweeney has been doing considerable work and it may be that he is the person you need to talk to.-- Rskp ( talk) 20:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
This article uses an unpublished war diary, and using them for references is original research. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 13:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
These war diaries have been published for some considerable time and their use is within the guidelines of Wikipedia, which prohibits interpretation or analysis. Please see the discussion at Battle of Mughar Ridge talk page for the full discussion. Here is one of those posts -
“ | I'm not disagreeing that they're primary sources, but they are published primary sources, and there's no outright prohibition on them. I think that the OR requirement we need to judge them against is that "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". I'm not a great fan of this part of our policy, I'll admit, but in terms of making an OR claim, we'll need to point to where there is such interpretation, analysis or synthetic claim, rather than just noting that its a primary source. Many of them are also cited alongside secondary sources in this article to support particular points - I think rather than a general tag, it might be useful to ID which points of use are of particular concern. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC) | ” |
This argument has shifted from a supposed problem with original research which has been addressed into a problem with affiliated sources. Neither attack on this article is credible.
This article has been subject to two assessments. Although the article failed, on neither occasion was the use of the war diary as a source, a reason for the failures. -- Rskp ( talk) 00:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney has repeatedly added this tag but has not given any reason for doing so and I have repeatedly removed it. No other editor has supported Jim Sweeney's action.
I appeal to Jim Sweeney to stop trying to create a second edit war using this tag. His first edit war was last time this article was up for a GA review. Then he insisted on changing the name of the Anzac Mounted Division to the ANZAC Mounted Division. The MilHist Project supported Anzac Mounted Division twice; the second time against Jim Sweeney's second attempt of the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division. -- Rskp ( talk) 04:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Copy violations to Powles have been deleted. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 14:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The original Cutlack reads An important patrol by Lieutenants Roberts, R. M. Drummond? and W. J. Y . Guilfoyle6 on October 25th en- countered no anti-aircraft fire over El Arish, and discovered [end page 43] signs of diminished strength in the Turkish force there. This observation was confirmed by another reconnaissance report two days later, and there quickly ran round the army the rumour of a coming new advance. Cutlack pp. 43-4.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 ( talk · contribs) 02:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Reviewing. I will check the War Diaries. Have copies here. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 02:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Magdhaba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Battle of Magdhaba has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi, this is quite an interesting article. I've done a quick review of this article and have the following suggestions (they are mainly related to style and presentation, as I don't know enough about content in this regard):
Anyway, I hope these points help. Cheers. AustralianRupert ( talk) 11:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes they are, thank you very much. -- Rskp ( talk) 05:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what a "fantass" is; it's not in my dictionary. Is it a piece of military equipment?-- Miniapolis ( talk) 20:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
ps I've just emailed the Museum to see if its possible to get a digital copy onto Wikipedia.
If there were no infantry in the battle who were they fighting reading the text in the Ottoman force section - At Magdhaba the garrison had been increased from 500 to about 1,400 Ottoman soldiers; there may have been as many as 2,000, consisting of two battalions of the 80th Infantry Regiment (27th Infantry Division, attached to the 3rd Infantry Division for most of 1916). The 2nd Battalion, commanded by Izzet Bey (about 600 men) and the 3rd Battalion, commanded by Rushti Bey, were supported by a dismounted camel company. Two squads from the 80th Machine Gun Company Jim Sweeney ( talk) 09:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
World cat lists 2 publishers in 1938 or whenever it was; Vorhut-Verl, and another publisher which you have cut. I don't know this reference, I have merely added details from the world cat as they appear there. Please reinstate this information, unless you know which publishing house the edition quoted was produced by. -- Rskp ( talk) 06:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Why replace 3 mounted brigades and 1 camel brigade with ~6,000? In this infobox, what does ~ mean? -- Rskp ( talk) 03:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division has been used to prevent edit war between ANZAC and Anzac. The source for the name is the Australian War Memorial which uses ANZAC [1] Jim Sweeney ( talk) 05:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The Battle honours section heading needs to be changed suggest awards or similar as Battle honours were awarded to all the regiments who took part. and its clear from the quote that he's talking about medals. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 05:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The numbers killed do not compute; 5 officers + 17 ORs = 12??
Anybody like to improve on what stands? "British casualties may have been as high as 163 of 146 known casualties, twelve were killed and 134 were wounded. Five of the killed and seven of the wounded were officers, while seventeen other ranks were killed and 117 wounded." Ned de Rotelande 10:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
G'day, Rskp, the Battle of Magdhaba article appeared on the main page yesterday. During its time, an editor raised an issue about the British Empire casualties on the talk page. I have responded to this and I think I have resolved part of the situation (the break down of killed and wounded for the 146 number), however, I was not able to work out the comment about British casualties possibly being as high as 163. Can you please add a citation to this, or clarify it? Additionally, while trying to respond to the question, I found that the infobox doesn't quite match the prose. For the Ottoman casualties, currently the infobox says: "97 dead, 300 wounded, 1,282 prisoners". However, the prose in the Casualties and captures section says "Over 300 Ottoman soldiers were killed; ninty-seven were buried on the battlefield, and forty wounded were cared for". As such, I have put a "clarification needed" tag in the infobox. When you get a chance, can you please check your sources and adjust the infobox how you see fit? Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 22:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
As to the casualties, from memory I revisited this section of the article some weeks ago during preparation for submission for a GA (which the article failed because of an edit war) and carefully edited the casualty section to reflect the sources quoted. From a quick glance at the history of this article it would appear Jim Sweeney has been doing considerable work and it may be that he is the person you need to talk to.-- Rskp ( talk) 20:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
This article uses an unpublished war diary, and using them for references is original research. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 13:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
These war diaries have been published for some considerable time and their use is within the guidelines of Wikipedia, which prohibits interpretation or analysis. Please see the discussion at Battle of Mughar Ridge talk page for the full discussion. Here is one of those posts -
“ | I'm not disagreeing that they're primary sources, but they are published primary sources, and there's no outright prohibition on them. I think that the OR requirement we need to judge them against is that "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". I'm not a great fan of this part of our policy, I'll admit, but in terms of making an OR claim, we'll need to point to where there is such interpretation, analysis or synthetic claim, rather than just noting that its a primary source. Many of them are also cited alongside secondary sources in this article to support particular points - I think rather than a general tag, it might be useful to ID which points of use are of particular concern. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC) | ” |
This argument has shifted from a supposed problem with original research which has been addressed into a problem with affiliated sources. Neither attack on this article is credible.
This article has been subject to two assessments. Although the article failed, on neither occasion was the use of the war diary as a source, a reason for the failures. -- Rskp ( talk) 00:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney has repeatedly added this tag but has not given any reason for doing so and I have repeatedly removed it. No other editor has supported Jim Sweeney's action.
I appeal to Jim Sweeney to stop trying to create a second edit war using this tag. His first edit war was last time this article was up for a GA review. Then he insisted on changing the name of the Anzac Mounted Division to the ANZAC Mounted Division. The MilHist Project supported Anzac Mounted Division twice; the second time against Jim Sweeney's second attempt of the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division. -- Rskp ( talk) 04:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Copy violations to Powles have been deleted. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 14:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The original Cutlack reads An important patrol by Lieutenants Roberts, R. M. Drummond? and W. J. Y . Guilfoyle6 on October 25th en- countered no anti-aircraft fire over El Arish, and discovered [end page 43] signs of diminished strength in the Turkish force there. This observation was confirmed by another reconnaissance report two days later, and there quickly ran round the army the rumour of a coming new advance. Cutlack pp. 43-4.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 ( talk · contribs) 02:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Reviewing. I will check the War Diaries. Have copies here. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 02:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Magdhaba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)