Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Mughar Ridge

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote EyeSerenetalk 13:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mughar Ridge

Nominator(s): Rskp (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I hope to raise the profile of this obscure engagement during a peripheral campaign in World War 1. The article seeks to give a balanced description of the operations and has been substantially rewritten, edited, copy edited and reworked and now its hoped may meet the criteria for A class. Rskp (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • A1, clear and good within the limits of citation style which is a template maintainer problem I have some concerns, I'll raise them before doing a minute citation check. I would like to invite other editor's opinions on the appropriate use of PRIMARY sources, and whether this article's use of archival materials is appropriate. My supposition is that it is okay here as the use is limited, apposite, simple and occasionally doubly supported. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citation of archival material, for example, ""Headquarters Australian Mounted Divisional Train War Diary". Canberra: Australian War Memorial. October - November 1917." is "Headquarters Australian Mounted Divisional Train. War Diary. [archive]. Canberra: Australian War Memorial, First World War Diaries - AWM4, Sub-class 25/20: AWM4 25/20/5 (PDF facsimile of manuscript and typescript). October - November 1917." As: The object has a corporate Author. The object has a Title, but is unpublished, quotation marks indicate that the object is a subsection of a published work (generally), italics indicate the object is a work published under that title. The object is an unfamiliar object (archive). The archive has a holding location, holding authority, location within archive and file number. And, as the object was not the archive sighted but a PDF facsimile of the archive. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi, Fifelfoo, I've had a crack at this for Rskp, but I don't think I've got it exactly right. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know if it still needs work? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am banging my head against the floor and want to cry because of the idiocy of hard coded " " and '' ''s in the citation templates. It looks like I have to write yet another citation template. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, mate. Thanks for taking a look so quickly. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • AustralianRupert's solution is pretty good. However, there are two problems. One is that the "Title" is in quotation marks. I have surveyed Citation/core and this is not fixable by users. You'll have to wait until March or April when I get coding time to produce a "Citation" style template that can handle "non-published works" like archives, reports, tech reports, theses, ephemera, etc. In the mean time the other problem can be solved by Italicising |work=s within templates. This makes the "work" appear _unitalicised_ as is correct for unpublished works. I'm implementing this on Battle of Mughar Ridge. Obviously my peer editors believe that the use of archival material here is reasonable, supported by secondary material, and not-original research [this was my broad feeling: archival material was acting as "illustrative" and not "substantiation" material]. Implementing fix now. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks for your help with this. I think that so long as they are not overused and so long as secondary resources are used to support them, then it should be okay. That's just my opinion, though, and others may disagree. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  1. In the info box Belligerents section Australia and New Zealand were part of the British Empire. Either only have the empire or add Great Britain, Aus, NZ without the B/Empire link.
  2. In the Commanders and leaders section there should only be Allenby listed on the allied side. Same with the Germans the senior commander only should be listed.
  3. The lede is well referenced but normally we only reference points not covered in the body of the article, for easier reading and to draw readers in.
  1. Also link Gaza and Beersheba on the first use not second, Hebron could also be linked in the same paragraph.
    I have fixed this, I believe. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. He ordered a successful attack by the 52nd (Lowland) Infantry Division to he ordered an attack, I doubt however much he wanted it that he order them to be successful.
    I have removed the word "successful". AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is the 156th Royal Scots the brigade or the battalion. I know they did not form 156 battalions but its not clear
  1. It seems weighted and possible POV towards the allied side. Here some Ottoman soldiers occupied a strong position on high ground north west of the village. The brigade made a dismounted attack capturing 600 prisoners along with large amounts of supplies, war material, and an abandoned German field hospital. Was this without any loss top the attacking brigade? and again later on At about 1200 the first water was found at El Mejdel when it was occupied with little difficulty by the 1st Light Horse Brigade. They capturing 170 prisoners Also should that be they captured ?
  1. They advanced 16 miles (26 km) (as the crow flies) as the crow flies is not needed.
    Removed. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 5th Yeomanry Mounted Brigade should be linked even if a red link. and is it the same unit mentioned three lines down 5th Mounted Brigade ?
  1. The field ambulance set up a dressing station and treated about 40 wounded - Wounded men, horses ?
    Clarified as "men". AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Anzac Mounted Division followed the infantry brigade - which infantry brigade
  1. 3000 yards could use the convert template
    Added the template. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Use .5 mile instead of 1⁄2 miles (0.80 km) and the same later on high ridge 1 and 1⁄2 miles (1.6 km) north as the fractions do not format right.
  1. 2/3rd Gurkhas can be linked 3rd Gurkha Rifles on the first use.
    Added the wikilink. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 156th Royal Scots Battalion - which battalion from the brigade its not clear and again later when the remnants are mentioned.
  1. The New Zealanders captured great numbers of machine guns (some with prismatic sights) and 2 Lewis guns. Lewis guns can be linked but they are also machine guns. So they captured machine guns and machine guns
  1. Access dates can be added to the web links in the bibliography
  2. The external link Estate remembers cavalry action 11 Nov 2007 is already used in the references.
    Removed the external link. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good start but I think it need a better copy edit and if it had had a peer review and GA review. I think it would be a lot closer to A Class standard. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: I have made a significant number of edits to this article, so I recuse myself from supporting or opposing the promotion of this article to A-class. However, I do have a number of suggestions/comments that I would like to add to aid in this article's development:
    • Without wanting to discourage you (I think you've done a lot of excellent work here), I also think it might have been best to put the article up for a peer review and then maybe going through a GAN before coming here to ACR (A-class is theoretically a higher rating than GA), but nevertheless hopefully, and with a bit of work, it can be successful and if not, the review should help it at least eventually be successful at GAN;
    • I've made a few edits today, some of which I believe may have addressed some of Jim's comments, so please work through his list to fix the issues I've not been able to address;
    • I'm not sure, but I think that the article could possibly benefit from having a small Background section (this could be placed above the Prelude). This could discuss what the general situation in the campaign at the time was. For instance, in the first paragraph of the Prelude we hear that the Ottoman Army was able to withdraw in good order but we don't know why they had to do so. A Background section would provide this answer by placing this battle within the context of the entire campaign. A good example of an A-class article with a Background section is: Battle of Kaiapit. If you take a look at this, it might help give you some more ideas;
    • Watch the use of superlatives, for example in this sentence: "Despite these difficulties the Ottoman Army successfully carried out an extremely difficult retreat to establish a new defensive position on an extremely well chosen position" (also watch repetition, e.g. "extremely" is used a number of times);
    • Another example of repetition: "After encountering rough mountainous ravines and 6 miles (9.7 km) of very rough going they camped in a wadi bed at about 2400" (the repeated use of the word "rough" is the issue here);
    • "XXth Corps", "XXIInd" and "XXIst" - are these correctly presented? I don't think it is normal to use ordinal suffixes ("th", "nd" and "st") for Roman numerals;
    • "(Wadi Jamus?)" - why is the question mark here? I'm not sure that it is good practice to present unknown information like this;
    • A number of sentences begin with "And", this is not ideal as it is a conjunction. For example, "And the Yeomanry Mounted Division were to push on from Huj and come into line on the right of the Australian Mounted Division";
    • "And railhead was pushed forward as rapidly as possible, but did not reach Deir Suneid until 28 November. So it was a considerable distance over which the Egyptian Camel Transport Corps worked to bring up supplies"; The issue here is that these two sentences begin with "and" and "so". These are conjunctions and are usually used to join clauses, rather than start sentences.
    • There is inconsistency in the presentation of figures, e.g. "two infantry divisions of XXIst Corps and 3 mounted divisions" (two and 3 are different). Per WP:MOSNUM usually numbers below 10 should be presented in words (except when measurements, e.g. "3 mm"), while those below 10 should be presented in words (e.g. four monkeys but 11 gorillas);
    • "20,000 strong". I think that this should be: "20,000-strong";
    • "reconnaissances" - I think this should just be "reconnaissance", I don't think it has a plural;
    • With the units, I think there should be a definate article in front of the designation, e.g. "the 4th Light Horse Brigade" rather than just "4th Light Horse Brigade";
    • "GOC" - you need to formally introduce an abbreviation before using it, as many readers will not know what this means;
    • "well sited"? I think that this should be: "well-sited";
    • "1 company officer and about 100 men": what's a company officer and how does it differ from a normal officer? (Is there a need to say "company officer"?);
    • Watch the placing of commas, and be careful to use paired commas where they are required (I have fixed a number of them, but my eyes are getting tired). AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major General Hodgson, and General Allenby etc; and

Reply to all

Thanks a lot for all the feedback. The time you have given this article is very much appreciated. Yes a peer review would have been a good idea but having tried that with another article about a battle in the Sinai campaign which could not find a peer I assumed this one would suffer a similar fate. A copy edit was done but the editor had some difficulties working in this obscure and foreign area.

I have attempted to address all the concerns raised above by directly editing the article and make the following additional comments -

  • 6. 'company officer' & 15. identity of 156th Royal Scots' battalion - I don't have the identity of the battalion. The direct quote from Falls p. 152-4 (with my ...s) reads 'The Royal Scots, ... The battalion was, however, reduced to a handful by the time it reached the crest, it had only one company officer left, and it was unable to withstand the counter–attack immediately launched by the enemy.' I've modified this to 'a battalion of Royal etc.'
  • I've located a photocopy and corrected this.
  • 7. Whatever casualties there were have not been stated in the sources I've seen.
  • 8. Yes I agree crow flies is not good so I've added in a straight line. These infantry soldiers probably walked much further.
  • 10. If they had been horses then the 9th Veterinary Section would have been referred to in the previous sentence rather than the 4th Light Horse Field Ambulance.
  • 11. The Anzac Mounted Division followed the infantry brigade - which infantry brigade? The infantry brigade mentioned in the previous sentence. I have added this second reference tho I initially thought it would be unnecessary repetition.
  • 16. The 2 Lewis guns are mentioned in addition to machine guns with prismatic sights as they were captures which the Ottoman units were employing during the fighting. I've cut 'and' adding 'including'.
    • "(Wadi Jamus?)" - why is the question mark here? This is the only reference in all the reading done regarding these operations to Wadi Katrah. Given the context I can only assume that the source meant Wadi Jamus but cannot be positive.
    • "reconnaissances" does refer to multiple reconnaissances by both cavalry and planes.
    • regarding the superlative 'extremely' I have changed one to extensive and the others are used in contexts which I understand to have been extreme.
    • the inordinate amount of sentences beginning with 'And' have been cut except 'And the Yeomanry' because I think its necessary there.
    • regarding GOC I've added a link to General Officer Commanding
    • I agree the photo of Ayun Kara is not ideal - I have looked quite extensively through AWM but this series of engagements is quite obscure. I've searched most of the locations in the AWM without success and the Library of Congress Palestine photos were taken too early for this conflict. Even the artillery photo included in the article is identified as being taken some time later in the Judean Hills.
    • Regarding the roman numerals can you tell me where I can check what the policy is? Many thanks to all --Rskp (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Anotherclown

Yes, that's right Anotherclown I edited those areas of the article on 12 January which you suggested and which you ticked yesterday. The consistency you are looking for in the names is not always possible e.g. Hodgson. Do you know his full name? Alternatively, the names of the Ottoman and German commanders are even more difficult; which are surnames, which first names and which are honorifics? Thanks a lot for your suggestions - I value your interest. --Rskp (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but there are still a large number of instances where we do know their full names (as they are wikilinked) so this needs to be rectified. I have made a couple of edits to hopefully show you what I mean. Anotherclown (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hodgson = Major General Sir Henry W. Hodgson, KCMG, CB, CVO (born 29 June 1868, died 5 February 1930) - British Army see Gullett p 255. Are there any others I might be able to assist with? Anotherclown (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I've searched everywhere for that - might have known Gullett would have it. --Rskp (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your point about the inconsistent numbers. MOS states an exception to writing out numbers from 0 to 9: 'Do not use spelled-out numbers before symbols for units of measurement' So does this mean either '1 officer' and '3 brigades' is correct? --Rskp (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No its incorrect as neither an officer or a brigade are units of measurement IMO. This needs to be changed to "one officer" and "three brigades". Anotherclown (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Will fix the numbers according to your advice. :) --Rskp (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text

At the moment these alternative descriptions are not informative. How can they be improved? --Rskp (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rskp, I've provided an example alt text description for the main infobox image. I'm not the best at alt text myself, but basically you are describing what is there for sight impaired viewers or those using hand held devices. If you want to have a crack at adding alt text to some of the other images, I will come through and take a look and, if possible, make some suggestions. You can view the alt text descriptions for the article here: [1], using the Featured article tools. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, again. Good work so far, but please remember that Alt text should describe what is in the image. For instance currently the alt text for the image of the Hong Kong Battery say this: "This photo was actually taken when the battery was fighting in the Judean Hills a week or so later". That is not adequate as a sight impaired user will have no idea what the image is showing. Something like this might be more appropriate: "A battery of four artillery guns sited along a ridge line". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies Just noticed a brigade name has been edited so that its referred to in two completely different ways e.g. '156th Brigade' and 'Royal Scots.' These edits do not help improve the article. What can be done to protect the article while this review process continues? --Rskp (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I believe that articles can only be protected in exceptional circumstances. If you do not agree with an edit, it is best to discuss it with the editor who made it. They can then explain their reasoning and then you and they can work out whether it should be changed or not. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Issue resolves on personal talk pages. Thanks. :)

Further comments
Overall this article has progressed significantlly and it is quite good in my opinion. Most of the MOS issues appear to have been resolved, however I think there are still a number a number of issues which need to be rectified (particularly with prose). Some issues that I can see include:

  • This sentence doesn't work for me: "The Battle of El Mughar Ridge (officially known by the British as the Action of El Mughar) took place on 13 November 1917 during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign of the First World War." You might consider moving this phrase to the aftermath and removing it from the lead altogether as it seems clumsy to me (but relevant if included correctly): "officially known by the British as the Action of El Mughar";
Addressed --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still not sure the current wording works. To be honest I would remove the "Officially known by the British as the Action of El Mughar" phrase from the lead altogether. Ultimately what does it do? There is very little difference between 'Action of El Mughar' and 'Battle of Mughar Ridge', as I said above I would just include it in the aftermath. If you do decide to keep it in the lead however (which I agree could still work) you might consider the following (more simple) construction: "The Battle of El Mughar Ridge, also known as the Action of El Mughar, took place on 13 November 1917 during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign of the First World War." The key here is explaining (later in the body - likely the aftermath) that it was officially known by this name to the British). I accept my previous advice on this issue may have been confusing. Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead seems a little slanted towards the British Empire forces, specifically "involved the 52nd (Lowland) Infantry Division and the 75th Infantry Division in the centre, with the Australian Mounted Division on their right flank and the Australian and New Zealand (Anzac) and Yeomanry Mounted Divisions on the infantry's left flank." What of the Ottoman forces?
Addressed --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its proving to be a problem because sources focus on the cavalry charge. Only giving the strengths and casualties of the regiments would be misleading, in view of all the related engagements grouped here. The 10,000 Ottoman prisoners quoted in the last sentence comes from Carver who tends to paint with a broad brush and are more likely to refer to the whole campaign from 31 October to 9 December; from Beersheba to Jerusalem though he does give the figure before going on to describe the Judean Hills fighting. --Rskp (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at Hareira and Sheria on the maritime plain", what is the maritime plain?
Its the flatish land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Judean Hills - isn't the meaning of 'maritime plain' fairly obvious? --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it needs to be clarified. IMO if I had to ask you what it meant other readers would be unsure also. Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be an overuse of the word 'this' (often 'this' might simply be reworded as 'the' IMO);
I'll look into this --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems grammatically incorrect to me: "During the Australian Mounted Division's night march the 3rd Light Horse Brigade with an artillery battery attached, acted as advance guard, followed by the 5th Mounted Brigade (which had made the costly but successful charge at Huj the day before) with the 4th Light Horse Brigade as rear guard." Probably just needs a comma, perhaps "During the Australian Mounted Division's night march the 3rd Light Horse Brigade, with an artillery battery attached, acted as advance guard, followed by the 5th Mounted Brigade (which had made the costly but successful charge at Huj the day before) with the 4th Light Horse Brigade as rear guard."
Added a new sentence. --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although its probably not incorrect, I don't think this works: ".25 miles (0.40 km)".

Specifically I think miles and kms are not the right units to use here, perhaps yards and metres?

I think that this looks wrong - it may be correct but I think the original fractions of a mile with the kilometre equivalents were more meaningful. --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How? IMO it looks fine. Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Air planes" should probably be reworded to "aircraft", seems more encyclopeadic to me at least;
Agree, will do.--Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "halting till dawn and then" seems informal, perhaps "halting till dawn and then"
What's the difference? --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I meant "halting until dawn and then". Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed this to: "halted until dawn and then" and split the sentence into two. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find "halted" my find mode seems to be having a melt down. --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Found it - seems ok. --Rskp (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "five burnt aeroplanes were captured", inconsistent language, specifically 'aeroplanes' which you previously called "Air planes". IMO you might consider rewording to "aircraft";
Will use aircraft. Thanks. --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ".5 miles (0.80 km)", again I would consider using smaller units of measurement;
These have already been changed from fractions at your suggestion. --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that works for me. Anotherclown (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • what are "night battle outpost lines", might they just be "outposts"?;
I suggest not. Outpost lines during daylight would be different to those set out at night because of the difference in conditions. --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I didn't make my point clear. "night battle outpost lines" is IMO an unnecessarily specific term which makes the sentence complicated. It is already clear that it is night ("but owing to darkness at 17:15...") As such you could easily simplify this to just "outposts" or "outpost lines". Of course night defensive routine would have differed to that during daylight, but that isn't the issue. Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Navy", which navy?
Probably the British as there has not been any mention of Ottoman or German navies but not sure. --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it would be the Royal Navy. As such the current wording is imprecise and needs to amended. Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the time a battalion of the 156th Brigade", maybe "By the time one of the battalions of the 156th Brigade" instead?;
What is the difference? --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it is less imprecise. Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The approach of the 8th Ottoman Army's whole", should this be "Ottoman 8th Army's"?;
Yes. Done. --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Punctuation seems problematic here: "During the first phase of the attack by XXI Corps' 75th Infantry Division was to capture" Specifically there probably needs to be a comma between XXI Corps and 75th Infantry Division, and the apostrophe seems incorrect to me (ie. "XXI Corps'" should probably be just "XXI Corps"). That said perhaps I have misinterpreted the sentence, in which case it might be reworded: "During the first phase of the attack by XXI Corps' 75th Infantry Division, the division was to capture...";
Can't find "during the first". Something wrong with the query function? Can you give me another clue where you are talking about? --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Finder now working. Yes agree - fixed. --Rskp (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At about 11:30 two leading battalions of 155th Brigade", should this be "At about 11:30 the two leading battalions of 155th Brigade..."
Is there any great difference? --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Less imprecise. Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This still seems like a problem to me: "Wadi Katrah (Wadi Jamus?)" (unless thats what the source actually says). At the least I would include the issue as a footnote rather than using "(Wadi Jamus?)." and
Yes, I'll put it in a note. Thanks. --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a good start. A citation needs to be included in the footnote however. Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Action of Ayun Kara' seems like its almost worthy of a new article. Indeed it seems to be covered in too much detail for the aftermath section of a battle article IMO. You might considered spliting it out into a seperate article and just leaving a summary in this article (and indicating its relationship to the battle of Mughar Ridge).
But it was an integral part of the Mughar Ridge battles - it was probably if anything a smaller action than the battles on the days prior to Mughar Ridge; its just I don't have that much detail about them. --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be more important than the subject of the article itself? Regardless, if it actually was a part of the Mughar Ridge battles then the detail should be included in the 'Battle' section and not the 'Aftermath'. This would of course require the Aftermath to be amended somewhat but might work as an alternative structre for the article IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes both the changes by AR and Rskp are much better. Anotherclown (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I accept these are a lot of points given that the ACR only has a few days left to run, and I apologise for not finding the time to bring them up earlier. If you have any questions though please let me know. Anotherclown (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Anotherclown. Your comments didn't appear on my watchlist for some reason. I'll get to them asap. What is the ACR and why and when does it finish? --Rskp (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Rskp. ACR stands for A-Class Review, which is the review that the article is currently undergoing. The general rule is that each review should run for 28 days and then be closed by one of the project co-ordinators as either successful or unsuccessful depending upon the concensus established by the reviewers. A successful review will lead to an article being rated as "A-class", while an unsuccessful review will just mean that the article stays at its previous rating (it can then be re-nominated once issues have been fixed at a later date (there is no time limit, or minimum), if the nominator wishes). For a review to be considered as successful, the rule is that it requires at least three explicit votes of "support" (which can sometimes be difficult due to a shortage of uninvolved editors). This review will be due for closing on or after 7 February (although sometimes it may take a few days for a review to actually be closed after it has "expired", due to the shortage of available co-ordinators. Additionally, sometimes if a review is close to being successful, it might be left open for a few extra days). AustralianRupert (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AustralianRupert. Looks like there are three reviewers - ah but you have recused yourself! Still, its a lot better than 0 for the Magdhaba. :) --Rskp (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No dramas, unfortunately as I have over 100 edits on this article it would be a conflict of interest for me to support its promotion. BTW, I've just had a quick look at the article again and it looks like there is some html code error in the "Action of Ayun Kara" section. I'm not quite sure what your intention with the image caption is, so I've left it alone, but currently the code is showing in the article, which it shouldn't be doing. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the mark up error now. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I know you have made a great many technical edits. Thanks very much. :) --Rskp (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This review has now run for 28 days, so it is due for closing. An uninvolved co-ordinator will do this soon (it might take a couple of days). Given that it doesn't seem to have gained the three explicit votes of support it will most likely be closed as unsuccessful. I hope this won't discourage you, though. There are probably only a few more issues to iron out before it could be successful at WP:GAN or here. I'd recommend working through the last of Anotherclown's comments after the review is closed and then requesting a peer review. After that you could take it to GAN and once successful there, an ACR shouldn't be too hard to complete successfully. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now - Although there is much to commend this article, which is quite good in my opinion, I don't think it is quite up to A class standard at this stage. There are still a few outstanding issues listed above, particularly with prose, imprecise language, structure and the lead. These will need to be worked through, however I believe they can be resolved in time. If I can be of assistance after this review is closed please contact me on my talk page. Anotherclown (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Mughar_Ridge&oldid=412526842"