Talk:Valley of Tears/GA1

GA Review

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

Alright! Good article, I can see you have put alot of hard work and researching into it. My review is below, I hope you find it helpful in continuing to improve the article. Charles Edward (Talk) 18:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

Lead

• • "They penetrated the Israeli defenses at night, benefiting from night vision equipment, which the Israelis lacked.", suggest changing to "They penetrated the Israeli defenses at night with the help of night vision equipment—equipment that the Israelis lacked."

• • "The next day, they mounted another attack, and at one point less than forty Israeli tanks were facing approximately 500 Syrian tanks." suggest changing to: "The next day, the Syrians mounted a second attack, and at one point in the engagement less than forty Israeli tanks were facing approximately 500 Syrian tanks."

• • "On the fourth day, a small reinforcement force arrived when the 7th Brigade was down to about a dozen tanks and almost out of ammunition." Who received the reinforcements?

• • "The Israeli forces managed to hold the line for four days, after which the Syrians retreated. The reasons behind the Syrian retreat have been debated." A bit confusing, did they hold the line four additional days, for a total of eight? Or is this just counting the original four days again?

**"The reasons behind the Syrian retreat have been debated." Why did the Syrians retreat if they had such an advantage? Give a couple of the debated reasons here to better end the lead.

• • • OK, I've incorporated your suggestions into the lead. Let me know what you think about it now. -- Nudve (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
      • That is better. How about - "The Syrians retreated for reasons that are still debated. Some sources suggest that Israel threatened Syria with a nuclear attack."
        • Done. -- Nudve (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Background

**I would suggest putting a {{main|Yom Kippur War}} at the top of the background section.

• • • Is it necessary? It's already established that it was a part of the war. The war article is not really the main article of this section. Alternately, could we use a "see" template intead of the "main" template? -- Nudve (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    • No this is not necessary, just a suggestion. It is useful though in helping to establish main and sub articles Charles Edward (Talk) 14:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• • "He also convened his battalion commanders to go over the main points of the operational plans that were previously implemented in the Israeli Northern Command." Suggest changing to "He held a meeting with his battalion commanders to go over the main points of the operational plans that were previously implemented in the Israeli Northern Command."

• • "The Israeli Intelligence estimated that Syria had more than 900 tanks and 140 batteries of artillery immediately behind the Syrian line." Where was the Syrian line? Where did it come from? Had it been there very long?

• • "The 7th Division was one of the units ready to attack." Was this the Syrian 7th division? It is a bit confusing since the Israeli unit was also a 7th. It would suggest labeling Isreali and Syrian when referring to units.

**"That would lead to a double envelopment of most of the Israeli forces in the Golan, as the 7th Division strikes west through El Rom and Wassett while the 5th Division moves to the Arik Bridge north of the Kinneret. Each division was to advance in two echelons." Suggest changing to "The plan would lead to the double envelopment of most of the Israeli forces in the Golan. Each division was to advance in two echelons, the 7th Division would strike westward through El Rom and Wassett while the 5th Division would move to the Arik Bridge north of the Kinneret"

• • • Made the changes. The line was basically the Purple Line, as the Syrians were "right on the border". The source does not elaborate, but I suppose the artillery was behind the tanks. -- Nudve (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Prelude

• • "They ran back to their battalions while Ben-Gal moved the headquarters out of the camp." Who is "they"? The Syrians or Isrealis?

**"Ben-Gal decided to maintain a reserve force, and began building a third battalion." Why did he decide to do this?

• • • It was his strategy. The source actually says it was his "obsession". Do you think this should be mentioned? After all, the article is not about Ben-Gal. -- Nudve (talk) 08:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I think it would be good to expand on that just a bit to better explain to the reader the purpose of the reserve force. For example: "Ben-Gal decided to maintain a reserve force because..., and began building a third battalion." Charles Edward (Talk) 15:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I've added that this was his usual strategy. -- Nudve (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

**"With reinforcements, the new battalion gradually became a proper one." Who received reinforcements, and how did that make the battalion "proper". I would suggest removing proper and replacing it with a better explanation, like "combat increased" if that is what is intended.

• • • I tried to clarify. Basically, it means it had three "proper" companies for tactical maneuvering. -- Nudve (talk) 08:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Ok that makes sense now. I would still suggest slight change. Pawn would fall under WP:SLANG, so instead say something like: "With reinforcements, the new battalion gradually grew to full strength, giving Ben-Gal an additional battalion available for maneuvering purposes."
        • "full stregnth" would be misleading, but I wrote battalions instead of pawns (although the source actually says "pawns"). -- Nudve (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

**"He received Lieutenant-Colonel Yair Nafshi's 74th Battalion, which was in line with the fortifications in the northern sector." Are these the reinforcements, or are these forces he moved from elsewere? It is not clear.

• • • There was a missing "the" in that sentence. Now it says what the source says. -- Nudve (talk) 08:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

**"The first battalion was stationed from fortification A1 on the Purple Line directly east of Masada on the foothills of Mount Hermon south for four miles to the Hermonit hill." This sentance is a bit confusing. I am not quite certain what you mean by it. Maybe this: "The first battalion was stationed on the Purple Line. The line began at the fortification A1, directly east of Masada on the foothills of Mount Hermon, and ran south four miles to Hermonit hill." If so that sounds much better.

• • • Done. -- Nudve (talk) 08:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

First Day

• "At 13:55, Nafshi's sector came under a heavy artillery barrage, and several soldiers along the Purple Line reported that the Syrians were removing the camouflage nets of their tanks and artillery." suggest change to. "At 13:55, while Nafshi's sector came under a heavy artillery barrage, several soldiers along the Purple Line reported that the Syrians were removing the camouflage nets from their tanks and artillery."

• • "Nafshi was at Kuneitra when the order came to deploy his platoons and move his headquarters somewhere safer, and he immediately ordered his troops out of town, tanks forward, soft vehicles back." Suggest changing to "Nafshi was at Kuneitra when the order came to deploy his platoons and move his headquarters somewhere safer. He immediately ordered his troops leave the town, and the tanks advance while the soft vehicles feel back."

• • "Nafshi ordered his men to destroy the bridging tanks, and during that afternoon the ones in sight were put out of action at ranges of 2,000 yards, and only two managed to reach the anti-tank ditch north of A3, opposite Hermonit." Another cumbersome sentance. How about "Nafshi ordered his men to destroy the bridging tanks. During the afternoon the Israeli destroyed most of Syrian bridging tanks within sight, putting them out of action by shots being fired at ranges of 2,000 yards. Only two of the bridging tanks managed to reach the anti-tank ditch north of A3."

• • The article needs a good copy edit. I think this will give you a good start and some pointers.
    • Yeah, I'll go over it when I have time and patience :) -- Nudve (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

**In your footnotes you need to use ndashes rather than hyphens. See WP:DASH for examples

• • • Will do. -- Nudve (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

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

   Good.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

• • I think if you are going to continue to improve the article, it will be important to get more information on the battle from the perspective of the Syrian front. However at this point I do not believe there is a POV in the article so much as a lack of information on the other side.
    • I know. I'm not sure if there is any material on it from the Syrian side. -- Nudve (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

1. 

• • This goes along with my prior comment. More information about the Syrian retreat and reasoning during the battle would be an important addition. (Although I can understand that some of the information may not be known or available).

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Good

2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

• • The map the top is great, but how about some more images? Maybe a picture of the Golan Heights, or a photo of the commanders, or what the tanks looked like, etc. Those are just ideas. Two or three should do the trick.
    • I'll try to find some. -- Nudve (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

1. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

• • Good.

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

• • Good.

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: On hold for seven days to allow for improvements. Article need a fair amount of copy editing and some additional images.

You can reply here or my talk page when you are ready for me to check the article again. Charles Edward (Talk) 18:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review. Cheers, Nudve (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Good so far! I have struck out the items that are resolved. Charles Edward (Talk) 15:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Nudve (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Good progress. At this point the only thing holding it back is a good copy edit and a couple additional images. Charles Edward (Talk) 17:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Decision

I am going to fail this GA, after several days have passed without the primary concerns being addressed. I beleive in its current state, the article fails for prose issues, and lack of images. These are easy to fix, when you have fixed them submit for a new review and it should pass. Good luck! Charles Edward (Talk) 16:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I've been a bit busy lately and have neglected this article in the last week. One day, when I have time and patience, I'll rewrite it, try to create some graphics, perhaps find a picture that can pass as fair use, and look for more sources. Thanks for the review. Cheers, Nudve (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)