Talk:Battle of Bizani/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
  • Version of the article when review was closed: [2]
  • Disambiguations: no dab links found using the tools: [3]
  • Linkrot: external links all work according to the tools: [4]

Criteria[edit]

  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  • Per Wikipedia:MOS#Images if possible consecutive images should be staggered right then left, rather than having two images stacked both to the right;
Changed a little the positions (there is enough room): second placed left and one paragraph down, an additional third (Ottoman p.o.w.s) placed right in the aftermath section.
  • in the lead "4-6 March" should have an endash per WP:DASH;
 Done
  • Bizani should be linked on first mention in the lead;
 Done
  • in the lead "in the Epirus front" should be "on the Epirus front" (this should also be changed in the first sentence of the Background section);
 Done
  • in the Background section, " to the direction of Ioannina" should be "in the direction of Ioannina";
 Done
  • the old style dates would work better in a Footnotes section, I feel, as the current format takes the readers' attention away from the prose, but this is just a suggestion;
 Done Apart from userbox, old style dates moved below
  • "1st Evzone regiment" should be "1st Evzone Regiment" as it is a proper noun;
 Done
  • the section heading "Battle of Bizani" should just be "Battle" per WP:MILMOS
 Done
  • in the Background seciton the date format is inconsistent (e. g. November 5, December 20, March 16 as opposed to 21 October);
 Done
  • there is a mixture of styles in citations (mostly you seem to use short citations, but # 4, # 5, # 13 and # 18 are long citations in the Notes section), I suggest making them all short in the Notes and including full bibliographic details in the sources section;
 Done
  • per the example in WP:LAYOUT, I suggestion renaming the References section "Notes" and then renaming the Sources section as "References";
 Done
  • Citation # 21 (Schurman) needs an accessdate;
 Done
  • If possible, the sources should have location of publication (not absolutely necessary, but if you have them they should be added in);
  • I suggest not using the word "whilst" as it seems a bit colloquial, probably best just to replace it with "while";
 Done
  • in the Battle of Bizani section, "feint an attack on Bizani" should be "feign an attack" as the verb does not agree with the noun;
 Done
  • in the Battle of Bizani section, the comma in this clause is not grammatically correct: "The assault was launched on 5 March [O.S. 20 February] 1912', 'by the 4th, 6th and 8th Infantry Divisions against the eastern and western sectors of the defensive perimeter" and the sentence should be reworded. I suggest something like this: "The assault was launched on 5 March 1912 with three Greek infantry divisions—the 4th, 6th and 8th Infantry Divisions—thrusting against the eastern and western sectors...";
 Done
  • in the Battle of Bizani section, this sentence seems to be missing a word: "By 18:00, the Greek 1st Evzone regiment, together with the 9th Battalion of Major Ioannis Velissariou, the village of Agios Ioannis on the southern outskirts of Ioannina". I think the word "entered" should be added before "the village". Also I think "of Major Ioannis Velissariou" should be reworded to "9th Battalion commanded by Major Ioannis Velissariou";
 Done
  • Ioannina is overlinked in the Battle section and again in the Legacy section, it only needs to be linked once in the lead and then once more upon first mention in the body;
 Done
  • in the Aftermath section "losing only 284 of its own" should be reworded to "suffering only 284 of its own" or similar as the verb does not agree with the noun (casualties);
 Done
  • in the Aftermath section I suggest putting a full stop after "Greek forces entered Gjirokaster, Delvine and the next day Tepelene" and then starting a new sentence with "At the end of the war they reached" as currently this sentence is a run-on sentence;
 Done
  • in the Aftermath section this sentence should be reworded: "in the Ionian coast to Lake Prespa to the east" should be "on the Ionian coast...";
 Done
  • in the Legacy section, the first sentence needs to be reworded: "Given the strongly entrenched opposition it faced, the historian Richard Hall cites the battle of Bizani and the fall of Ioannina as the greatest military effort of the Greek army in the First Balkan War". The issue here is the word "it". As it currently is the word refers to the battle, however, the battle didn't face strongly entrenched opposition (it was the attackers that faced this opposition) so there is a problem with the agreement between the first clause and the second, or more specifically the subject and predicate of the sentence. I suggest rewording like this: "Given the strongly entrenched opposition the Greek Army faced, historian Richard Hall cites the Battle of Bizani and the fall of Ioannina as Greece's greatest military achievement in the First Balkan War";
 Done
  • in the Legacy section, the second sentence appears to be missing a word: ("Decisive factor" should have an article in front of it or should be reword thusly: "Numerical superiority was not a decisive factor for the Greeks during the final assault. Instead it was the way they planned their operations that led to..."
 Done
  • the sentence about the contribution of women seems out of place, or just tacked on, in the Legacy section. Why is this significant? Could this be better dealt with in the main body somewhere, with some more context?
I've moved this paragraph to the 'preparations in initial attacks' section, adding some context. My thought on adding this in this article was that participation of women at war 'that time' was always considered news.
  • some ISBNs have hyphens and others don't, you need to be consistent (either they should all have hyphens,or they all shouldn't have them);
 Done All hyphens removed.
  • the categories should sorted in numerical and then alphabetical order;
 Done
  • the page ranges in Citation # 13 and Citation # 24 should have an endash per WP:DASH.
 Done
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  • all major points are cited to reliable sources;
  • no OR that I can detect.
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  • the Aerial warfare section seems a bit small, is there more that could perhaps be added here? Could some of the operations be described perahps? What was the Ottoman response to the Greek bombing missions?
I've added some interesting information on the topic.
  • the article seems to be largely written from a Greek perspective, e.g. use of terms like "the Army" (second paragraph in the lead) make the article sound like it has a Greek point of view;
Changed this part with the more neutral: Greek troops.
  • much of the article focuses upon Greek movements, I would like to see more information about the Ottoman preparations for the battle, movements etc. Is it possible to add this in, do the sources mention this at all?
I've added some info about the Ottoman defenses/preparations as well some reinforcements they acquired (background section).
  • as per above, I feel the article needs a bit more information from the Ottoman/Turkish side.
I've added information about the Ottoman side: preparations/defenses/reinforcements (background section) and reactions, retreat and the return of the Ottoman commander to Turkey (battle section). Hope it's balanced enough now, considered that the bibliography is mainly focused on the attacker.
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  • there has been a bit of recent work, but no edit wars that I can see, so seems stable
  • 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':
  • there is no alt text per WP:ALT, but I suggest that it could be added (note, however, this not a GA requirement, it just a suggestion, however);
 Done
  • images: I don't think the three images are correctly licenced. Currently they are all using a licence that claims "life of author plus 70 years", however, states that the author is "unknown". If the author is not known, then it is not possible to determine if they have been dead for over 70 years. Having said this, the images would be PD in my opinion because they were published before 1923 which is a golden year in US copyright law (which is what matters for Wikipedia as that is where the servers are located), thus I feel if you change the licence tag on the images from {{PD-old}} to {{PD-1923}} it would solve this problem.
 Done
  • are there any Ottoman/Turkish images that could be added to the article? Currently you have a painting that depicts both sides, and two images of Greek troops (this is not a requirement, but it is a sugestion for further improvement. I won't fail the review based on this);
Not exactly, I found a picture of Ottoman troops, prisoners after the battle, hope it does the job.
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:
  • There are a few things that I feel need to be done to bring this article up to GA status, however, I do not feel that these warrant a quick fail as I believe that they are able to be achieved within the required timeframe. As such I will place it on hold for a week (until 2 July, although I'm open to being flexible with this) to see what changes are made before deciding upon the outcome. I'm prepared to accept any reasonable explainations of my concerns, and any changes will be taken into consideration, of course. Good work so far.
  • Please feel free to annotate on this page how you have addressed each of the concerns, either by responding on a new line below the comment or by placing the {{Done}} tags beside them, so I know where you are up to. AustralianRupert (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All my concerns have been addressed adequately, so I am happy to promote this article to GA status. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some further review points (made after the initial review)

Great work so far in addressing my points. Thanks for getting to them so quickly. I've read through the changes and struck anything that you've dealt with to my satisfaction. There are a couple more points I found:

  • the date in the lead (4-6 March) and in the infobox is still in a different format to the rest of the article, which uses Month Day (e.g. October 21);
  • in the Initial Greek attacks on Ioannina section, this should be changed: "amongst which twelve heavy 105 mm and 155 mm guns)...". Twelve should be changed to "12" (to be displayed in numerals) per Wikipedia:MOS#Numbers as figures or words;
  • in the References section "A concise history of the Balkan Wars" should be capitalised as: "A Concise History of the Balkan Wars" per Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Composition titles;
  • in the References section "Epirus, 4000 years of Greek history and civilisation" should be capitalised as: "Epirus, 4000 Years of Greek History and Civilisation";
  • in the References section "East Central European socity and the Balkan wars" should be capitalised as "East Central European Society and the Balkan Wars";
  • the source in Citation # 23 (Baker), should be converted into short citation style and then moved to the References section;
  • in the Aerial warefare section, the height value "1,600-2,300 meters" should have a convert template on it converting meters to feet (this is for readers that can't conceptualise meters). This can be done by typing {{convert|1600|–|2300|m|ft|sp=us}};
  • in the Aerial warfare section, this should be reworded: "In specific occasions Ottoman troops, after intial confusion tried to..." I suggest rewording to "On numerous occasions Ottoman troops, after recovering from their intial confusion, attempted to shoot down the aircraft with their rifles. They were largely unsuccessful, nevertheless, N. de Sackoff, a Russian pilot flying for the Greeks, became the first pilot ever shot down in combat, when his biplane was hit by ground fire..." AustralianRupert (talk) 02:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done (all the additional points).
  • Good work. I did a minor copy edit for a couple of issues I found on the final proof read. Please check to see you agree with them or not. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they are 100% fine.Alexikoua (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Bizani/GA1&oldid=370317698"