Talk:First Battle of Dernancourt/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 03:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I will review this for GA over the next few days. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Initial suggestions: G'day, nice work. I have a few suggestions, below: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• in the Background section, I wonder if a little more context is necessary... for instance, perhaps the general war situation could be clarified a bit more, explaining what the German Spring Offensive was. It probably could be done in one to two sentences, so it wouldn't unbalance the article, IMO;

•  Done let me know what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• in the infobox, is "decisive" how the sources describe this result? If not, it is probably best just to say "Allied victory"

•  Done probably an overstatement.

• Dernancourt is overlinked in the Background section

•  Done

• in the Background, "the remaining two brigades of the 4th Division...": perhaps add the designations here. For example, " the remaining two brigades of the 4th Division – the 12th ad 13th – ..."

•  Done

• in the Background, perhaps the dispositions of the 13th Brigade could also be mentioned

•  Done

• "holding its sector with two companies in a series...": suggest wikilinking Company (military unit) here

•  Done

• "Albert-Amiens road": should have an endash

•  Done

• "12th Machine Gun Company": possibly could pipe a wikilink to 4th Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)

•  Done

• should a link to this article (and any others) be added to the {{Campaignbox Spring Offensive (World War I)}} template? Doing so might help improve the accessability of the article, but I don't know if there has been a decision to only include certain battles on that template, or not

• Not sure about that, it is pretty high level. Maybe 2nd Dernancourt would qualify, given its significance, but it is only a new campaignbox and I too am unclear about its intent.

• are there any images that might be added to the infobox? This would help improve the visual appeal of the article (but it isn't a GA requirement)

• I'm working on it, the AWM doesn't have many pics of Dernancourt (surprisingly), maybe a location map, but probably won't get it done for this review.

• this one might possibly work for the Aftermath: [1] AustralianRupert (talk) 07:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• one of these might possibly work for the infobox: [2] or [3] AustralianRupert (talk) 07:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• I did look at those, but they are of the 5 April battlefield I believe, which varies a bit from 1st Dernancourt. I'd move the bridge one up, but I think it is best in the body to illustrate the fighting at the bridge. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Blast, you are right. Oh well, I guess they are there for 2nd Dernancourt ... nudge... ;-) Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• "File:AWM A01059 Aerial view of the Dernancourt battlefield.jpg": on the image description page it says date unknown, but the AWM appears to provide a date of 30 May 1918

•  Done

• "S.O.S. line" might need clarification

•  Done Added a note and reference explaining what they were.

• I'd suggest maybe making "Allied dispositions" and "German plan of attack" third level headers underneath a "Prelude" second-level header (not really required, though)

• Good suggestion  Done

• "By this time, the troops of the 12th Brigade had been "moving, marching and fighting for three days and three nights almost without sleep", and were in...": the quote here might need in line attribution

• I've closely cited it to Bean, which involves subsequent repetition of the same footnote, but that's ok I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, that's fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• "along the railway line were glaringly obvious": I'm not sure this sentence is necessary, but if you think so I'd suggest potentially attributing the opinion or rewording it slightly as it seems close to editorialising

• I've attributed it to Deayton, and dropped the "glaringly". It's line ball, and he is pretty disparaging, talking about "even more apparent" shortcomings.

• Military Operations France and Belgium, 1918: March–April, Continuation of the German Offensives by Edmonds, Davies and Maxwell-Hyslop might have some more information that might be useful for this article. Do you know if you have access to it? If not, Keith-264 might be able to help

• A good idea, my state library has a copy. Probably have a look before an ACR nom.

• were there any battle honours awarded as a result of this battle?

• Hard to say, possibly Ancre 1918, but I wouldn't know where to find confirmation. Any ideas? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Probably not Ancre 1918, which was for the fighting in April, I think: [4]. Maybe "Somme 1916, '18"? [5] I think Anotherclown (talk · contribs) might have some info based on their work on Battle and theatre honours of the Australian Army. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• I discovered that my state library has Battle Honours of the British and Commonwealth Armies by Anthony Baker, which I'll go in and take a look at before an ACR nom, along with Edmonds et al. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• No dramas, seems like a good plan. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• G'day AustralianRupert, I think I'm done for now. I'll take a couple of the points on notice for action before the ACR nom, as I need to get into town to take a look at some books. Let me know what you think of the new para in Background? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Too easy, those changes look good. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

I am happy that this article meets the GA criteria above, noting that there are a couple of minor issues raised that can be dealt with at or before a subsequent ACR. Beyond this, thanks for your efforts. Are you planning on writing the Second Dernancourt and Morlancourt articles? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Rupert, I'm planning to do 2nd Dernancourt soonish, which is much bigger and more complex, not sure about Morlancourt though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Great to hear. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)