Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battles of the Kinarot Valley

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battles of the Kinarot Valley edit

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Nudve (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it recently passed GA review and I believe it meets the criteria. Thanks, Nudve (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - (this version)
    • I don't really like the lead image....to me, it conveys nothing about the battle, and not much about the location.
Would you suggest using a different image out of those that appear in the article? I actually thought it was a highly relevant image, which clearly shows the scene were the battle took place (albeit a modern scene). I also compared it to other articles about battles from the World War II era, and all of them have either a famous photograph associated with the event (which I believe is not nearly as relevant, and there's no such photo for this battle anyway), or an orientation map (which are given later in the article, where I believe they are more relevant). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider putting the Syrian tank image in the infobox, since it is somewhat of an icon of the battle. It also has the right proportions. -- Nudve (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That might be better. A photograph from the event is more helpful and representative to a reader in the infobox, whereas the overhead shot of buildings and green isn't as much (IMO). —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the images. Is it now OK with everyone? -- Nudve (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still support the aerial shot. Ed? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, but get ready to defend the sandwiches at FAC. :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per the template, {Cquote} should not be used for block quotes - use {{quote}}.
Done. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reduced the image size of the Palmach soldier and moved the other one a bit. What resolution do you have? I tried emulating a 1024x768 resolution, and while it doesn't look perfect, I believe that as it stands now it's not breaking. If you still think it's bad (let me know), maybe one of the images should be removed, although they are both relevant. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the image sizes per MOS:IMAGE, and I can live with the remaining sandwiches as there are not many alternatives and you can't really move the images around much :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's Golani's official website, and a primary source. While primary sources should be used with caution, and avoided whenever possible, there's nothing necessarily wrong with using them when there is no contradictory evidence in secondary sources, and when there is no clear conflict of interest. No source gives the exact death toll for Tzemah, although all the books used for the article say something like 'heavy losses', which supports the Golani source. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While this point is not really important to me, the link to Degania (a disambiguation) was added on purpose, for the term "the Deganias". -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, and there is no need to quibble over this for A-class, but be warned that Sandy will question this at FAC.
  • Support. The article is very well written, factual, neutral and don't fall in the trap of giving too much details. The maps are excellent and illustrate this at best. For me it is a class-A.
To get the class-FA, I would suggest :
  • If there are wp:rs sources on the topic) to develop a (little) section Historiography and collective memory where the evolution of the tale of the battle and the importance in the Israeli collective memory would be described.
  • to develop the strategic importance of the area. I think I remember the alleged objectives of the Syrians was to cut the East-Galilea for the remaining of Israel, moving forward to Afula where they would be joined by Iraqis and then to move forward to Haifa (I am not sure - I will look for in Gelber(2006) and provide the info on the talk page if I find this.
  • to mention the strategic importance of the Kinnereth Sea / Tiberiade lake for Syrians should be mentionned
  • to develop the afternath of the defeat from syrians's pov
  • I suggest to remove Benny Morris, The Birth... revisited from the bibliography because these events are not at all concerned with the Palestinian exodus and suggest to add David Tal and Benny Morris last books. For the second one, I can give support.
  • Syrian sources should be found and if not quoted, at least, provided in the bibliography. (I am fully aware it is hard stuff). I think there could be some information in Avi Shlaim ed., The War for Palestine where the syrian version of the events should be given (analysed and neutralized) by one of the author of the book.
Ceedjee (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
see Yoshua Landis's article p.196.. Ceedjee (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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/Battles_of_the_Kinarot_Valley&oldid=1066794129"