Talk:Battles of the Kinarot Valley/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I would be happy to review this article for GAC. H1nkles (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Still some controversy, it is stable but as with any article related to this subject there will be disputes and this one is no different.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Well done the article is certainly good and with some more work could move up from here. H1nkles (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Initial comment

I see that there has been a significant back and forth already on the GA quality of this article. I have yet to read the article or the discussion on the article's talk page. So as not to bias my review I will not read the discussion on the talk page until after I have reviewed the article and made comments here. As with anything related to this subject there are strong opinions on both sides, I will endeavor to be impartial and fair. H1nkles (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Lead

• Battle of Degania-Tzemah, and battles near Masada-Sha'ar HaGolan. These two places should be wikilinked.
  • I think it's good from a stylistic point of view to have them linked in the second paragraph (as they are now), to avoid overlinking or a feeling of overlinking. What do you think? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I stringently resist overlinking, my rationale was that the mention of these places in the lead is the first the readers see of them, makes sense to link them but they are linked later so that is fine. H1nkles (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Why do you bold the Battle of Degania-Tzemah?
  • Done. There was actually a reason, but on second thought it isn't important. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Quote, "The campaign was perceived as a decisive Israeli victory, causing reorganizations in the Syrian high command and tales of the heroics in Degania becoming popularized in Israel." This is a run on sentence, please split and make the second sentence less passive - "Tales of Israeli heroics especially at Degania became popular." For example.
  • Reworded. Is it better now? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Better - thanks. H1nkles (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding the table - Strength on the Israeli side you say 70, is that 70 soldiers?!? And what about at the battles of Masada-Sha'ar HaGolan? Also under casualties and losses you say "Tens (Tzemah)" What do you mean by "Tens"? H1nkles (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Part about strength done. Casualty figure—this is what the source says, and I have unfortunately not been able to find anything better. Tens (עשרות, asrot) is often translated as "dozens", which is widely-accepted in English, but some numbers (esp. between 20 and 30) would not fill well with the "dozens" definition. I'm not sure how to fix this without finding out the actual casualty number, which is difficult because Nudve, I, and the internet, have almost all the notable literature on this subject. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah this is a tricky one. "Tens" really isn't a correct word in English. "Dozens" is linguistically better but isn't very precise. Can it be changed to "approx. 20-30"? H1nkles (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Overall it's a good summary of the article and covers the major points addressed in the body. H1nkles (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Background

• Well written.
• Is there anything on the motivation of the Arab forces that could be put in without violating POV standards? Why did Lebanon not wish to participate?
  • There is a lot of literature on this, but the situation was rather complicated. As you can see from the above discussion, Ceedjee and I disagreed on some very simple points, so I shudder to think of the dispute that more content on Arab planning would bring (doesn't necessarily have to do with POV). Moreover, I strongly oppose adding anything too detailed to the background section as it stands now. I'll see if there's anything simple to add from Gelber's book, which is available on Google Books in English. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Your points are well taken. I have not read the comments between you and Ceedjee so that I can maintain a fresh set of eyes on the article. If there is something simple to delve a little deeper on that subject that would be fine. I'm all for summary style and digging into motives can get controversial. I'll trust you to know best how to handle that. H1nkles (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• You appear to have good maps of the battles, what about a map outlining the movement of the Syrian forces? I think this would be a nice addition for people unfamiliar with the geography of the area.
  • It would definitely improve the article, but I'm not sure there's time to make it within the timeframe of this review. I'll make something later, although if you believe it's imperative, I'll try to make something simple tomorrow or on the weekend. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• It isn't mandatory, it would be a nice addition since the maps are very clear and topical. If it can be done after the review that will be fine. H1nkles (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• You refer to the Mandate of Palestine, is this synonymous with Israel? If so then perhaps putting (Israel) after it would help clarify that. H1nkles (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • They are not synonymous, although I agree that it might not be immediately clear to the casual reader. I just added a wikilink for convenience, but will be glad to hear suggestions on how to make it easier to understand. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes the link helps I didn't realize the Mandate encompassed so much of what is now Jordan, Lebanon and even Saudi Arabia. H1nkles (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding prelude

• Quote, "He had only two of his battalions, and they were exhausted" Why were they exhausted? The article doesn't clarify, is it because they were forced to reposition? The context makes me think they were exhausted prior to their move out of Lebanon but I could be reading it wrong. Please let me know.
  • I will wait for Nudve's comment on this because he owns Dupuy's book and I do not, but I'd say that both scenarios are highly possible. These troops had to reposition several times in several days, which is not a simple logistical task, and it's likely that at least some of the repositioning was done on foot. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Ynhockey is correct. They were exhausted because they had to move all the way back across the Golan. -- Nudve (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

After reading the actual quote from the book, I clarified the issue, although it might need better wording. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Otherwise the section is fine. H1nkles (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Battles

Well written up to the first subheading. I'll review that next. H1nkles (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Tzemah

• The first paragraph has two in-line citations at the end but there are a lot of facts in the paragraph. Until now you've been very good about listing citations within the paragraph. Please add citations in the body of this first paragraph. Especially after the sentence about enormous Israeli casualties due to their inability to dig in.
• Photo is good and very topical. H1nkles (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Degania Alef

• Quote, "...and made a clear separation between the Kinarot Valley and the Battle of Gesher to the south against Transjordan." Are you saying that the Battle of Gesher was fought against Transjordan? It isn't very clear.
  • Done. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Quote, "The Israeli defenders numbered about 70 persons" This statement needs a citation.
  • Same citation as the rest of the text leading up to #1. Do you think it needs a reword? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Otherwise the section is fine. H1nkles (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Degania Bet

• Quote, "Despite the Syrian superiority in numbers and equipment, the destruction of a multitude of armored vehicles and the infantry's failure to infiltrate Degania Alef was the likely cause for the retreat of the main Syrian force to Tzemah." This is speculation, is there a source for this statement?
  • That's actually almost exactly what the source says (Wallach, Jeuda: Carta vol. 2, p. 15). What do you suggest? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Put the in-line cite there. That will support the assertion. H1nkles (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• The final paragraph in this subsection about why the Syrians withdrew needs in-line ciations within the paragraph for the two reasons for the retreat. H1nkles (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It appears that of all sources used, only Dupuy gives the reasons for the Syrian withdrawal. His book is in English so maybe Nudve can provide a full quote. However, it appears that the entire paragraph is paraphrased from Dupuy, so I don't see a need to add more of the same citation. Is this what you had in mind? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• That's fine. H1nkles (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Aftermath and effects

This section is fine, the first tank kill section is a bit superfluous but it doesn't detract from the article so it's ok. H1nkles (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding References

• The references are good, I usually like to see accessdates within 3-4 months of my review. You have a couple in late August, which is right on the edge of that time frame. If you could update those that would be great.
  • Done. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• The references appear credible though I can't check the books. You do incorporate some English language sources, which are important. Formatting looks good. H1nkles (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Overall review

• Consider my comments above, this is just a summary of my impressions of the article.
• Check your in-line citations and add a few to main facts in the article. For the most part you're good on this, just a few paragraphs need to be addressed.
• Prose is good. I fixed a couple type-o's.
• Pictures and maps are excellent.
• Check that "Tens" reference in the table, that should be addressed.
• Clarify a couple of questions above and it should be done. Good job! I'll hold it for a week, if you finish up your fixes early just let me know, I'll read it one more time and do my final determination. I think now I'll read your little back and forth and see what that was all about. H1nkles (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

H1nkles, thank you very much for the review! I was beginning to give up hope, it's been up for almost 2 months. In any case, I fixed almost all of the issues you mentioned. One issue appearing in several sections is citations (especially in the Tzemah section)—you say that there should be more in-line citations, although I'm not quite sure how to address that. Basically all text in the article is cited, and if there are several sentences without in-line citation, it means that they all come from the citation at the end. For example, the entire 3rd paragraph in the Tzemah section comes from citation #20, the text in 'Battles' between 'The opening shots ...' and '... the two kibbutzim' come from citation #1, etc. There are some combinations, where a paragraph is paraphrased from longer text passages from 2 or more sources, which are both given at the end (in Tzemah section). It is possible to re-arrange certain facts to have slightly more in-line citations, but I believe this is counter-productive and will harm the flow of the prose. It is also not practical to have the same citation given several times consecutively (IMO). What do you suggest? Are there any other issues I missed? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 04:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ynhockey, I've read your comments and appreciate where you're coming from. The MOS is not explicit about putting in-line citations after every fact and I don't advocate citations after every fact. My suggestion was given with the idea that readers may want to research certain assertions in the article. If it is generally understood that the citation(s) at the end of the paragraph cover all the facts then that's fine. I have not done FA reviews and so I'm not sure how this issue is handled in that realm. Since this is a GA review I will go with your reasoning. It appears as though you have finished your fixes so I will review the article one last time and then determine GA status today. BTW I noted in your profile that you spent some time in Burnaby B.C., I had the honor of living in Coquitlam for nearly a year. I would say it's God's country up there but you live in Israel and that literally is God's country. Shalom. H1nkles (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Pass

It is my pleasure to pass this article as GA. It is well written and very fair to both sides. Keep up the good work. Congratulations. H1nkles (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciatd. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)