This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Sharon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Battle of Sharon 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
HLGallon, This is a very new article which has only just been moved out of my userspace, because construction was more or less complete. There is still a lot of work to be done before it will be ready to request a copyedit. Please don't bother continuing your copyedit, at this stage. Thank you. -- Rskp ( talk) 06:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Upon request, took a run through this. Comments:
I see that you have changed the citations so that some of the page numbers appears in the article, but the name of the source is in the citation list while others have been left as they were, and you have grouped all Falls refs together but not others. I've never seen this before and I don't understand what you have done or why. Can you please undo it? -- Rskp ( talk) 07:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
What is the "the British Empire infantry corps" mentioned in the first paragraph? Surely it had a number? Bazuz ( talk) 10:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Indian infantry regiments were formed on ethnic lines each company from a different community, only one of which would have Hindi as the language. So the other three spoke different languages. Did the other officers speak the language of their company?
Jim Sweeney is limiting this article to one link in the intro and one in the narrative. In a short article that might be ok but to cut all links after only two, in a long and involved article like this is not being helpful to general readers. -- Rskp ( talk) 02:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if its misleading to have a photo from the Western Front in this article? -- Rskp ( talk) 04:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The AIF was armed with Lee-Enfield rifles and mounted troops with Hotchkiss and Vickers machine guns. To suggest they only had swords and bayonets is ridiculous. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 09:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The 10th Division only had three British battalion not four as stated in the text.
Each division of approximately 3,500 mounted men, was made up of three brigades and each brigade composed of three regiments. That's only 389 men in each regiment, do you mean per brigade?
War establishment of a Light Horse Brigade total including staff, regiments, artillery engineers ASC AMC and half a field hospital 2,158 1,743 in three regiments + 181 artillery + 23 staff total 134 in a Squadron [Mounted Service Manual MT 1902 p.10] 1,743 x 3 brigades in a division = 4,229 war establishment of fighting units making 3,500 = one division a reasonable figure. -- Rskp ( talk) 03:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
According to Falls Vol. 2 p. 688 only No. 11 and 12 Light Armoured Motor Batteries and Nos 1 and 7 Light Car Patrols formed the Machine Gun Corps. What is the source for Jim Sweeney's claim that "all british machine gun sqdns and coys came from the MGC." Does this mean that the machine gun squadrons were not part of the brigades of DMC but part of the Machine Gun Corps? -- Rskp ( talk) 02:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The 4th and 5th Divisions were formed in Palestine from British Indian Army units sent from France and British Yeomanry already in the EEF. See Falls oobs for the EEF of October 1917 and September 1918. -- Rskp ( talk) 06:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Potential British Indian Army officers attended the Indian staff college at Quetta (before joining their regiments) after successfully completing the course they were commissioned in the British Indian Army not the British Army. There were normally 12 officers per regiment six in staff positions (CO, 2IC, MO, QM, Adjutant and assistant), four company commanders and two wing commanders (two company's to a wing). Because of the shortage of officers those regiments that remained in India only had ten officers. Platoons were commanded by Viceroy's commissioned officers, British officers commanded the companies (which were smaller than British ones) and above. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 07:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Examining the division orbat you can see which were the newly formed battalions.
In the info box
Edmund Allenby
clarification needed
Allenby was the commander of the EEF and it was his corps which fought the battle following his plans. -- Rskp ( talk) 06:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
For example see the FA class articles Battle of Verrières Ridge Battle of Vimy Ridge. The Canadian Army was under the command of Montgomery (Verrieres) and Haig (Vimy) but there not listed. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 09:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The 75th Division started getting Indian reinforcements in 1917 as is references can you stop deleting it. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 09:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The Populations living on the battlefields section have no bearing on the fighting or conduct of this battle and is just padding. Can you supply a good reason why this section should not be deleted. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 07:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
“ | The inhabitants of the region varied greatly in their background, religious beliefs and political outlook. Living from
Jericho northwards, were indigenous Jews in Samaria,
Moravians in
Galilee, some
Druse,
Shi'a Metawals and a few
Nussiri (pagans). In the east were the
Bedouin. [British Army Handbook 9/4/18 p. 61]
In Haifa town, about half the population was Muslim and in Acre almost all were Muslim. On the Esdraelon Plain as far as Beisan were Sunni Arabs and one new Jewish colony near Afulah. Muslims, Christians and Jews lived in the foothill country of Northern Galilee. Christians of at least five denominations formed a large majority in and around Nazareth town. The inhabitants of the eastern part of this Northern Galilee area were predominantly indigenous Jews, who had always inhabited Tiberias and Safed. [British Army Handbook 9/4/18 p. 62] |
” |
I repeat that the Battle of Nablus GA reviewer awarded that article GA status with the description of the population living on the battlefield intact. There has been no argument put forward to refute this. There is also no reason why the population on the battlefield subsection should be cut out of this Battle of Sharon article before an editor has a change to carry out a GA review. -- Rskp ( talk) 07:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
It is possible that descendants of the people who lived on this battlefield are reading Wikipedia and may be interested to know about this battle.
The argument has been made above that the area of the battle was small. In 21st century terms when most people travel by car or bus at 60 miles (97 km) per hour or faster, the battlefield is tiny, but in 1918 the distances were considerable given the means of transport. At the time the vast majority of the combatants travelled by foot or horse at, from 3 miles (4.8 km) per hour.
Links to other Jim Sweeney edits where he sought to cut information, have been cut by him. He says those links TO HIS EDITS are a personal attack. How, I really can't imagine.
He is again seeking to cut information and it is relevant to this discussion that his history of other attempts is known, here. The examples and links can be accessed by going to the "View History" option of this talk page. -- Rskp ( talk) 23:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Even with the section left in it leaves a lot unsaid;
In fact the section fails to describe the population but tries to describe their religion. Muslims can be Chinese, Asian, European, Middle-Eastern or African and there are growing Muslim communities in the new world countries. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 09:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
You misunderstand me, the people described had been part of the Ottoman Empire for centuries and were about to be occupied by the British Empire. The liberation you refer to was British propaganda which we can see from our perspective in the 21st century divided and fractured.
I think you sell very short, all the GA reviewers who have worked on the GA articles I have had something to do with. Your demands to the GA reviewer of the Nablus article are unnecessary. That editor has already ruled that the populations subsection along with the rest of the article fulfill GA criteria. Your consensus seeks to a) devalue that assessment of the Nablus article and b) preempt the GA review for this Sharon article. I think you should respect the GA reviewer's ruling on the Nablus article and allow the Sharon article to stand, to be judged by some future GA reviewer with the population subsection included. -- Rskp ( talk) 01:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
A review at WP:GAN is a "personal" review carried out by one reviewer, but that does not preclude other "eligible" editors from contributing to the review, however in that case the first reviewer has the final say (P.S. "eligible" editors just means those editors who are not precluded from reviewing an article, because, e.g. they contributed to the article or nominated it). So, it is the reviewer who decides whether that nomination is compliant with, in the case of this discussion, WP:WIAGA clauses 3 (a) & (b). Since I am not (I've not signed up to do so) reviewing the article my view has no bearing on whether it does or does not comply; and I'm not going to give a judgement here. A different reviewer might come to a different decision, and the quality of reviews ranges from "good" to "poor", but WP:GAR can be used if the review is considered to be deficient and a nomination "wrongly" passed or failed. Secondly, the requirement is to review against WP:WIAGA not against other articles, so arguments of the type "this article needs to include hobbits because Battle for Middle Earth is a GA (it's not - I checked) and it has hobbits, so this article needs them as well" has no bearing on whether an article should or should not be granted a GA. Neither does it provide grounds for delisting existing GA - they can be re-reviewed a delisted if they don't comply with WP:WIAGA, but there is no "Hobbit" test for battles. Finally, I would like to highlight WP:WIAGA clause 5. The article history could be showing signs of an edit war and a reviewer could use that as a (valid) reason for failing the nomination. It might otherwise be a GA-class article, but an article at WP:GAN showing a history of recent an edit war could be failed. Again, the reviewer decides whether it is an edit war, sometimes it is not all that clear whether it is a edit war, an negotiating strategy, or just ongoing attempts to improve the article. Clause 5 is not there to stop improvements, its there to ensure that unstable candidates don't get GA. This response of mine may not be the answer that editors are expecting from me, but having skim-read the points above I've come to the conclusion (rightly or wrongly) that its about a non-existent "Hobbit" test for battle GAN nominations. I'm happy to expand on my comment if they are not clear. Pyrotec ( talk) 22:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Consensus states "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." Does the above "community consensus," on cutting the 'Populations living on the battlefields' subsections of the Background to five articles, (see also the First Transjordan attack and the Pursuit to Haritan) represent an evolution of the Wikipedian ethos of consensus into something else? -- Rskp ( talk) 04:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The inhabitants of the region varied greatly in their background, religious beliefs and political outlook. Living from Jericho northwards, were indigenous Jews in Samaria, Moravians in Galilee, some Druse, Shi'a Metawals and a few Nussiri (pagans). In the east were the Bedouin. [GB Army EEF Handbook 9/4/18 p. 61]
In Haifa town, about half the population was Muslim and in Acre almost all were Muslim. On the Esdraelon Plain as far as Beisan were Sunni Arabs and one new Jewish colony near Afulah. Muslims, Christians and Jews lived in the foothill country of Northern Galilee. Christians of at least five denominations formed a large majority in and around Nazareth town. The inhabitants of the eastern part of this Northern Galilee area were predominantly indigenous Jews, who had always inhabited Tiberias and Safed. [GB Army EEF Handbook 9/4/18 p. 62]
The article is diminished when you cut this relevant and inoffensive information. The source is a good one, no one disputes the validity of the information. Its being cut because Jim Sweeney says its padding, and has no bearing on the battle, GraemeLeggett is against it because the inhabitants were not active participants, Blackmane says its unrelated. The sources for the article do not say the locals did or did not participate in the battle. So how can these editors know enough to make such judgements? -- Rskp ( talk) 00:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
This article has numerous spg errors. As you all keep undoing my changes, can the article's owner or manager fix them please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.9.119 ( talk) 09:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
While I see merit in using quoted sections from Allenby to show his thoughts on the battleplan etc, there does seem to be whole sub-sections with quoted text. Eg Yildrim defence preparations. And long quotes from Allenby's letters. While Allenby's letters and missives attribut origin, other quotes such as the Yildrim section aren't clear of the origin - is it text from the book, or text quoted in the book. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 07:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Peacemaker67 ( talk · contribs) 09:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC) I'm starting the review of this article now. Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 09:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | There are some serious issues here. The grammar and prose is in need of significant work throughout. An example from the lead is "These major infantry attacks by large formations in a set piece attack, created a gap in the front line through which the Desert Mounted Corps cavalry advanced many miles behind enemy lines to capture Afulah, Beisan and Jenin the next day and get in position to capture many thousands of retreating German and Ottoman soldiers in the following days". This very long sentence has only two commas, one of which is a list comma. The subject of the sentence is not clear and the repetition of "attack" in the early part of the sentence needs a rework. Other examples include the use of "was" instead of "were" in the lead, ie using singular past tense instead of plural past tense, ie "the ... trenches were heavily attacked" should be used. "Firepower" is one word. There are dozens of such issues in the lead alone. There are multiple issues with grammar, misuse of the semi-colon, unclear sentence construction and spelling errors just in the lead which continue throughout the article. The significant overuse of quotations that should simply be rendered as plain prose is also an issue. I recommend a thorough
WP:GOCE copy edit to bring the article up to GA standard against 1a.
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | There are a number of issues here. 1. WP:LEAD The first sentence does not mention any of the following facts; that this battle was; part of the Battle of Megiddo; part of the Sinai and Palestine Campaign; or part of WWI. For this reason among several others it "drops the reader into the middle of subject from the first word" contrary to WP:LEAD, and does not meet the MOS requirements for the lead section in the areas of "first sentence" and "contextual links" at a minimum. It needs a major rework after a close reading of WP:LEAD
|
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
|
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | But only just, there is a lot of what some reviewers might consider edit-warring going on regarding a couple of issues, notably the local population. I take the view that robust discussion is not grounds for a no here, but if the issue cannot be resolved by consensus on the talk page, it should go to some sort of dispute resolution IMO, and I wouldn't bring it back to GAN until the matters are resolved.
|
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | The following images need their licensing fixed. 1. File:AWMH18747Afulah.jpg 2. File:IWM HU69889.jpeg 3. File:AWMB02113 HandleyPage Aircraft.jpg 4. File:AWMB02101Wreckage.jpg 5. File:Cutlack Map8 p.160.jpeg 6. File:AWMB03305Anebta.jpg
|
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Some captions are too long and much of the text should be provided in the article body. An example is File:Falls Map 21det.jpeg. What is a Falls Map? The use of this term is unclear, "Map of the situation as at 04:30 23 September 1918 showing..." would probably be sufficient.
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | A long and detailed article that covers the subject more than adequately and has many good features. Unfortunately it falls down significantly in GA attribute 1, and the issues in areas such as grammar, spelling, punctuation and prose mean that there isn't scope to put this article on hold as the copy edit needs to be comprehensive and will take some time. I strongly recommend a
WP:GOCE copyedit followed by a MILHIST
peer review then re-submit to GAN. Well done on your efforts so far and good luck with improving the article. Regards,
Peacemaker67 (
send... over)
11:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
|
G'day all, it's not clear to me why this article title has disambiguation by year in parentheses. There is no other Battle of Sharon on en WP, and the only other battle with a similar name that I am aware of is the The Battle of Sharon Springs Swamp (sometimes referred to as the "Battle of Sharon"), a very small action of the American Revolutionary War that occurred near Sharon Springs, New York. Even if an article existed for that battle (which it doesn't), this would be the primary topic and the ARW battle would need disambiguation. I propose moving this article to Battle of Sharon iaw WP:TITLE. Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 12:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
G'day, the section template currently being used for the background section of this, and numerous others articles of the Sinai and Palestine Campaign, is not in accordance with WP:BODY, which explicitly says that "If one or more articles provide further information or additional details (rather than a full exposition—see above), references to such articles may be placed immediately after the section heading for that section, provided this does not duplicate a wikilink in the text." I have made the gentle suggestion that the number of links be reduced, but this appears to have fallen on deaf ears. As all but one of the listed battles are already linked in the text of the article, only the Battle of Tell 'Asur and Occupation of the Jordan Valley should be there at all. The purpose for which they are being used is not the purpose for which they exist. I have therefore removed them all except the two that I've mentioned. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 11:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Seriously guys, this is getting into LAME territory if you keep bumping heads. Roselyn, we've pointed out that CONSENSUS is that the section is not necessary. Until a new consensus is formed, continuously reinserting the section is ignoring consensus and may be reverted. If you disagree with the old consensus, try opening a new thread for comments or focussing on polishing what is here for a new GA nomination. If you continue to edit war you and other participants, depending on the degree of warring, may be blocked. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 09:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
"The people living on the battlefield varied greatly in their background, religious beliefs and political outlook. From Jericho northwards, indigenous Jews lived in Samaria, Moravians in Galilee, some Druse, along with Shi'a Metawals and a few Nussiri (pagans). In the east lived the Bedouin." [GB Army EEF Handbook 9/4/18 p. 61] "In Haifa town, about half the population was Muslim and in Acre almost all were Muslim. On the Esdraelon Plain as far as Beisan Sunni Arabs lived along with a new Jewish colony near Afulah. Muslims, Christians and Jews lived in the foothill country of Northern Galilee. In and around Nazareth town Christians from at least five denominations formed a large majority. The inhabitants of the eastern part of this Northern Galilee area were predominantly indigenous Jews, who had always inhabited Tiberias and Safed." [GB Army EEF Handbook 9/4/18 p. 62] -- Rskp ( talk) 03:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: WikiCopter ( talk · contribs) 18:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Sorry so long in responding. My computer died halfway through reviewing, so now I have to reconstruct my review from scratch. Here are the main points I remember.
"By April 1918, 35 Indian infantry and two Indian pioneer battalions were preparing to move to Palestine.[14] Those battalions with numbers from 150 upwards, were formed by removing complete companies from experienced regiments then serving in Mesopotamia to form new battalions."
In July 2012 before the copy edit and edit war, the article looked like this [7] -- Rskp ( talk) 04:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyediting is only thing left.
Wiki
Cop
ter
Returns 19:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
See Anotherclown's comments above.
Wiki
Cop
ter
Returns
19:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Comments. I've had a look, and I can't copyedit something unless I know what the writer was trying to say, and in many cases here, I don't know. Starting at the top:
What is the current status of the copyedit? Wiki Cop ter Returns 19:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
An IP editor seems to have taken against the re-introduction of this section. It wasn't present the article was promoted to GA.
Presumably, if they are editing this article, there is a chance they will read the talk page. Rskp, can you just explain what you mean by "reinstate populations living on the battlefield subsection according to WP:POLL". GraemeLeggett ( talk) 15:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I keep seeing references on Wikipedia to the French cavalry component. The unit is described as "16th Régiment Mixte de Marche de Palestine et Syrie". Where has this come from? It has dubious provenance, and seems to have been on a list after the 14th and 15th Light Horse.
Not only is there no 16th, but the unit is a hybrid of the actual unit name which is 1er Régiment Mixte de Marche de Cavalerie du Levant and the overall term for the French forces: Détachment Français de Palestine et de Syrie Keith H99 ( talk) 18:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Sharon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Battle of Sharon 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
HLGallon, This is a very new article which has only just been moved out of my userspace, because construction was more or less complete. There is still a lot of work to be done before it will be ready to request a copyedit. Please don't bother continuing your copyedit, at this stage. Thank you. -- Rskp ( talk) 06:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Upon request, took a run through this. Comments:
I see that you have changed the citations so that some of the page numbers appears in the article, but the name of the source is in the citation list while others have been left as they were, and you have grouped all Falls refs together but not others. I've never seen this before and I don't understand what you have done or why. Can you please undo it? -- Rskp ( talk) 07:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
What is the "the British Empire infantry corps" mentioned in the first paragraph? Surely it had a number? Bazuz ( talk) 10:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Indian infantry regiments were formed on ethnic lines each company from a different community, only one of which would have Hindi as the language. So the other three spoke different languages. Did the other officers speak the language of their company?
Jim Sweeney is limiting this article to one link in the intro and one in the narrative. In a short article that might be ok but to cut all links after only two, in a long and involved article like this is not being helpful to general readers. -- Rskp ( talk) 02:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if its misleading to have a photo from the Western Front in this article? -- Rskp ( talk) 04:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The AIF was armed with Lee-Enfield rifles and mounted troops with Hotchkiss and Vickers machine guns. To suggest they only had swords and bayonets is ridiculous. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 09:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The 10th Division only had three British battalion not four as stated in the text.
Each division of approximately 3,500 mounted men, was made up of three brigades and each brigade composed of three regiments. That's only 389 men in each regiment, do you mean per brigade?
War establishment of a Light Horse Brigade total including staff, regiments, artillery engineers ASC AMC and half a field hospital 2,158 1,743 in three regiments + 181 artillery + 23 staff total 134 in a Squadron [Mounted Service Manual MT 1902 p.10] 1,743 x 3 brigades in a division = 4,229 war establishment of fighting units making 3,500 = one division a reasonable figure. -- Rskp ( talk) 03:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
According to Falls Vol. 2 p. 688 only No. 11 and 12 Light Armoured Motor Batteries and Nos 1 and 7 Light Car Patrols formed the Machine Gun Corps. What is the source for Jim Sweeney's claim that "all british machine gun sqdns and coys came from the MGC." Does this mean that the machine gun squadrons were not part of the brigades of DMC but part of the Machine Gun Corps? -- Rskp ( talk) 02:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The 4th and 5th Divisions were formed in Palestine from British Indian Army units sent from France and British Yeomanry already in the EEF. See Falls oobs for the EEF of October 1917 and September 1918. -- Rskp ( talk) 06:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Potential British Indian Army officers attended the Indian staff college at Quetta (before joining their regiments) after successfully completing the course they were commissioned in the British Indian Army not the British Army. There were normally 12 officers per regiment six in staff positions (CO, 2IC, MO, QM, Adjutant and assistant), four company commanders and two wing commanders (two company's to a wing). Because of the shortage of officers those regiments that remained in India only had ten officers. Platoons were commanded by Viceroy's commissioned officers, British officers commanded the companies (which were smaller than British ones) and above. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 07:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Examining the division orbat you can see which were the newly formed battalions.
In the info box
Edmund Allenby
clarification needed
Allenby was the commander of the EEF and it was his corps which fought the battle following his plans. -- Rskp ( talk) 06:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
For example see the FA class articles Battle of Verrières Ridge Battle of Vimy Ridge. The Canadian Army was under the command of Montgomery (Verrieres) and Haig (Vimy) but there not listed. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 09:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The 75th Division started getting Indian reinforcements in 1917 as is references can you stop deleting it. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 09:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The Populations living on the battlefields section have no bearing on the fighting or conduct of this battle and is just padding. Can you supply a good reason why this section should not be deleted. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 07:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
“ | The inhabitants of the region varied greatly in their background, religious beliefs and political outlook. Living from
Jericho northwards, were indigenous Jews in Samaria,
Moravians in
Galilee, some
Druse,
Shi'a Metawals and a few
Nussiri (pagans). In the east were the
Bedouin. [British Army Handbook 9/4/18 p. 61]
In Haifa town, about half the population was Muslim and in Acre almost all were Muslim. On the Esdraelon Plain as far as Beisan were Sunni Arabs and one new Jewish colony near Afulah. Muslims, Christians and Jews lived in the foothill country of Northern Galilee. Christians of at least five denominations formed a large majority in and around Nazareth town. The inhabitants of the eastern part of this Northern Galilee area were predominantly indigenous Jews, who had always inhabited Tiberias and Safed. [British Army Handbook 9/4/18 p. 62] |
” |
I repeat that the Battle of Nablus GA reviewer awarded that article GA status with the description of the population living on the battlefield intact. There has been no argument put forward to refute this. There is also no reason why the population on the battlefield subsection should be cut out of this Battle of Sharon article before an editor has a change to carry out a GA review. -- Rskp ( talk) 07:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
It is possible that descendants of the people who lived on this battlefield are reading Wikipedia and may be interested to know about this battle.
The argument has been made above that the area of the battle was small. In 21st century terms when most people travel by car or bus at 60 miles (97 km) per hour or faster, the battlefield is tiny, but in 1918 the distances were considerable given the means of transport. At the time the vast majority of the combatants travelled by foot or horse at, from 3 miles (4.8 km) per hour.
Links to other Jim Sweeney edits where he sought to cut information, have been cut by him. He says those links TO HIS EDITS are a personal attack. How, I really can't imagine.
He is again seeking to cut information and it is relevant to this discussion that his history of other attempts is known, here. The examples and links can be accessed by going to the "View History" option of this talk page. -- Rskp ( talk) 23:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Even with the section left in it leaves a lot unsaid;
In fact the section fails to describe the population but tries to describe their religion. Muslims can be Chinese, Asian, European, Middle-Eastern or African and there are growing Muslim communities in the new world countries. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 09:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
You misunderstand me, the people described had been part of the Ottoman Empire for centuries and were about to be occupied by the British Empire. The liberation you refer to was British propaganda which we can see from our perspective in the 21st century divided and fractured.
I think you sell very short, all the GA reviewers who have worked on the GA articles I have had something to do with. Your demands to the GA reviewer of the Nablus article are unnecessary. That editor has already ruled that the populations subsection along with the rest of the article fulfill GA criteria. Your consensus seeks to a) devalue that assessment of the Nablus article and b) preempt the GA review for this Sharon article. I think you should respect the GA reviewer's ruling on the Nablus article and allow the Sharon article to stand, to be judged by some future GA reviewer with the population subsection included. -- Rskp ( talk) 01:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
A review at WP:GAN is a "personal" review carried out by one reviewer, but that does not preclude other "eligible" editors from contributing to the review, however in that case the first reviewer has the final say (P.S. "eligible" editors just means those editors who are not precluded from reviewing an article, because, e.g. they contributed to the article or nominated it). So, it is the reviewer who decides whether that nomination is compliant with, in the case of this discussion, WP:WIAGA clauses 3 (a) & (b). Since I am not (I've not signed up to do so) reviewing the article my view has no bearing on whether it does or does not comply; and I'm not going to give a judgement here. A different reviewer might come to a different decision, and the quality of reviews ranges from "good" to "poor", but WP:GAR can be used if the review is considered to be deficient and a nomination "wrongly" passed or failed. Secondly, the requirement is to review against WP:WIAGA not against other articles, so arguments of the type "this article needs to include hobbits because Battle for Middle Earth is a GA (it's not - I checked) and it has hobbits, so this article needs them as well" has no bearing on whether an article should or should not be granted a GA. Neither does it provide grounds for delisting existing GA - they can be re-reviewed a delisted if they don't comply with WP:WIAGA, but there is no "Hobbit" test for battles. Finally, I would like to highlight WP:WIAGA clause 5. The article history could be showing signs of an edit war and a reviewer could use that as a (valid) reason for failing the nomination. It might otherwise be a GA-class article, but an article at WP:GAN showing a history of recent an edit war could be failed. Again, the reviewer decides whether it is an edit war, sometimes it is not all that clear whether it is a edit war, an negotiating strategy, or just ongoing attempts to improve the article. Clause 5 is not there to stop improvements, its there to ensure that unstable candidates don't get GA. This response of mine may not be the answer that editors are expecting from me, but having skim-read the points above I've come to the conclusion (rightly or wrongly) that its about a non-existent "Hobbit" test for battle GAN nominations. I'm happy to expand on my comment if they are not clear. Pyrotec ( talk) 22:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Consensus states "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." Does the above "community consensus," on cutting the 'Populations living on the battlefields' subsections of the Background to five articles, (see also the First Transjordan attack and the Pursuit to Haritan) represent an evolution of the Wikipedian ethos of consensus into something else? -- Rskp ( talk) 04:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The inhabitants of the region varied greatly in their background, religious beliefs and political outlook. Living from Jericho northwards, were indigenous Jews in Samaria, Moravians in Galilee, some Druse, Shi'a Metawals and a few Nussiri (pagans). In the east were the Bedouin. [GB Army EEF Handbook 9/4/18 p. 61]
In Haifa town, about half the population was Muslim and in Acre almost all were Muslim. On the Esdraelon Plain as far as Beisan were Sunni Arabs and one new Jewish colony near Afulah. Muslims, Christians and Jews lived in the foothill country of Northern Galilee. Christians of at least five denominations formed a large majority in and around Nazareth town. The inhabitants of the eastern part of this Northern Galilee area were predominantly indigenous Jews, who had always inhabited Tiberias and Safed. [GB Army EEF Handbook 9/4/18 p. 62]
The article is diminished when you cut this relevant and inoffensive information. The source is a good one, no one disputes the validity of the information. Its being cut because Jim Sweeney says its padding, and has no bearing on the battle, GraemeLeggett is against it because the inhabitants were not active participants, Blackmane says its unrelated. The sources for the article do not say the locals did or did not participate in the battle. So how can these editors know enough to make such judgements? -- Rskp ( talk) 00:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
This article has numerous spg errors. As you all keep undoing my changes, can the article's owner or manager fix them please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.9.119 ( talk) 09:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
While I see merit in using quoted sections from Allenby to show his thoughts on the battleplan etc, there does seem to be whole sub-sections with quoted text. Eg Yildrim defence preparations. And long quotes from Allenby's letters. While Allenby's letters and missives attribut origin, other quotes such as the Yildrim section aren't clear of the origin - is it text from the book, or text quoted in the book. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 07:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Peacemaker67 ( talk · contribs) 09:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC) I'm starting the review of this article now. Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 09:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | There are some serious issues here. The grammar and prose is in need of significant work throughout. An example from the lead is "These major infantry attacks by large formations in a set piece attack, created a gap in the front line through which the Desert Mounted Corps cavalry advanced many miles behind enemy lines to capture Afulah, Beisan and Jenin the next day and get in position to capture many thousands of retreating German and Ottoman soldiers in the following days". This very long sentence has only two commas, one of which is a list comma. The subject of the sentence is not clear and the repetition of "attack" in the early part of the sentence needs a rework. Other examples include the use of "was" instead of "were" in the lead, ie using singular past tense instead of plural past tense, ie "the ... trenches were heavily attacked" should be used. "Firepower" is one word. There are dozens of such issues in the lead alone. There are multiple issues with grammar, misuse of the semi-colon, unclear sentence construction and spelling errors just in the lead which continue throughout the article. The significant overuse of quotations that should simply be rendered as plain prose is also an issue. I recommend a thorough
WP:GOCE copy edit to bring the article up to GA standard against 1a.
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | There are a number of issues here. 1. WP:LEAD The first sentence does not mention any of the following facts; that this battle was; part of the Battle of Megiddo; part of the Sinai and Palestine Campaign; or part of WWI. For this reason among several others it "drops the reader into the middle of subject from the first word" contrary to WP:LEAD, and does not meet the MOS requirements for the lead section in the areas of "first sentence" and "contextual links" at a minimum. It needs a major rework after a close reading of WP:LEAD
|
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
|
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | But only just, there is a lot of what some reviewers might consider edit-warring going on regarding a couple of issues, notably the local population. I take the view that robust discussion is not grounds for a no here, but if the issue cannot be resolved by consensus on the talk page, it should go to some sort of dispute resolution IMO, and I wouldn't bring it back to GAN until the matters are resolved.
|
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | The following images need their licensing fixed. 1. File:AWMH18747Afulah.jpg 2. File:IWM HU69889.jpeg 3. File:AWMB02113 HandleyPage Aircraft.jpg 4. File:AWMB02101Wreckage.jpg 5. File:Cutlack Map8 p.160.jpeg 6. File:AWMB03305Anebta.jpg
|
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Some captions are too long and much of the text should be provided in the article body. An example is File:Falls Map 21det.jpeg. What is a Falls Map? The use of this term is unclear, "Map of the situation as at 04:30 23 September 1918 showing..." would probably be sufficient.
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | A long and detailed article that covers the subject more than adequately and has many good features. Unfortunately it falls down significantly in GA attribute 1, and the issues in areas such as grammar, spelling, punctuation and prose mean that there isn't scope to put this article on hold as the copy edit needs to be comprehensive and will take some time. I strongly recommend a
WP:GOCE copyedit followed by a MILHIST
peer review then re-submit to GAN. Well done on your efforts so far and good luck with improving the article. Regards,
Peacemaker67 (
send... over)
11:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
|
G'day all, it's not clear to me why this article title has disambiguation by year in parentheses. There is no other Battle of Sharon on en WP, and the only other battle with a similar name that I am aware of is the The Battle of Sharon Springs Swamp (sometimes referred to as the "Battle of Sharon"), a very small action of the American Revolutionary War that occurred near Sharon Springs, New York. Even if an article existed for that battle (which it doesn't), this would be the primary topic and the ARW battle would need disambiguation. I propose moving this article to Battle of Sharon iaw WP:TITLE. Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 12:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
G'day, the section template currently being used for the background section of this, and numerous others articles of the Sinai and Palestine Campaign, is not in accordance with WP:BODY, which explicitly says that "If one or more articles provide further information or additional details (rather than a full exposition—see above), references to such articles may be placed immediately after the section heading for that section, provided this does not duplicate a wikilink in the text." I have made the gentle suggestion that the number of links be reduced, but this appears to have fallen on deaf ears. As all but one of the listed battles are already linked in the text of the article, only the Battle of Tell 'Asur and Occupation of the Jordan Valley should be there at all. The purpose for which they are being used is not the purpose for which they exist. I have therefore removed them all except the two that I've mentioned. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 11:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Seriously guys, this is getting into LAME territory if you keep bumping heads. Roselyn, we've pointed out that CONSENSUS is that the section is not necessary. Until a new consensus is formed, continuously reinserting the section is ignoring consensus and may be reverted. If you disagree with the old consensus, try opening a new thread for comments or focussing on polishing what is here for a new GA nomination. If you continue to edit war you and other participants, depending on the degree of warring, may be blocked. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 09:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
"The people living on the battlefield varied greatly in their background, religious beliefs and political outlook. From Jericho northwards, indigenous Jews lived in Samaria, Moravians in Galilee, some Druse, along with Shi'a Metawals and a few Nussiri (pagans). In the east lived the Bedouin." [GB Army EEF Handbook 9/4/18 p. 61] "In Haifa town, about half the population was Muslim and in Acre almost all were Muslim. On the Esdraelon Plain as far as Beisan Sunni Arabs lived along with a new Jewish colony near Afulah. Muslims, Christians and Jews lived in the foothill country of Northern Galilee. In and around Nazareth town Christians from at least five denominations formed a large majority. The inhabitants of the eastern part of this Northern Galilee area were predominantly indigenous Jews, who had always inhabited Tiberias and Safed." [GB Army EEF Handbook 9/4/18 p. 62] -- Rskp ( talk) 03:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: WikiCopter ( talk · contribs) 18:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Sorry so long in responding. My computer died halfway through reviewing, so now I have to reconstruct my review from scratch. Here are the main points I remember.
"By April 1918, 35 Indian infantry and two Indian pioneer battalions were preparing to move to Palestine.[14] Those battalions with numbers from 150 upwards, were formed by removing complete companies from experienced regiments then serving in Mesopotamia to form new battalions."
In July 2012 before the copy edit and edit war, the article looked like this [7] -- Rskp ( talk) 04:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyediting is only thing left.
Wiki
Cop
ter
Returns 19:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
See Anotherclown's comments above.
Wiki
Cop
ter
Returns
19:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Comments. I've had a look, and I can't copyedit something unless I know what the writer was trying to say, and in many cases here, I don't know. Starting at the top:
What is the current status of the copyedit? Wiki Cop ter Returns 19:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
An IP editor seems to have taken against the re-introduction of this section. It wasn't present the article was promoted to GA.
Presumably, if they are editing this article, there is a chance they will read the talk page. Rskp, can you just explain what you mean by "reinstate populations living on the battlefield subsection according to WP:POLL". GraemeLeggett ( talk) 15:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I keep seeing references on Wikipedia to the French cavalry component. The unit is described as "16th Régiment Mixte de Marche de Palestine et Syrie". Where has this come from? It has dubious provenance, and seems to have been on a list after the 14th and 15th Light Horse.
Not only is there no 16th, but the unit is a hybrid of the actual unit name which is 1er Régiment Mixte de Marche de Cavalerie du Levant and the overall term for the French forces: Détachment Français de Palestine et de Syrie Keith H99 ( talk) 18:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)