# Talk:Battle of Tabsor

A search in Woodward "Hell in the Holy Land World War I in the Middle East" does not contain the word blitzkrieg. Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If this was a Google search then, I'm not surprised. In this instance its a book see page 191 of the 2006 edition and you will find the reference. --Rskp (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I have moved the "dubious tag" to the talk page in order to discuss it. The tag stated "That Allenby planned blitzkrieg warfare as the term was unknown and his tanks had been returned to the western front." The term was used in 2006 by Woodward, not by Allenby in 1918. --Rskp (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The term was used in 2006 by Woodward, not by Allenby in 1918 - Therefore Allenby could not have planed blitzkrieg warfare. Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
You acknowledge that the citation is correct. I'm sorry, your point escapes me. --Rskp (talk) 07:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
No I have not acknowledged its correct on checking Woodward p.191 the term blitzkrieg is not used. You cannot say Allenby planned Blitzkrieg warfare if he did not. It is only Woodwards or your  interpretation, text amended.Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney the exact quote from Woodward 2006 p. 191 reads: "Concentration, surprise, and speed were key elements in the blitzkrieg warfare planned by Allenby. … This gave his army at the point of attack a 4.4–to–1 advantage in infantry, or 5.5–to–1 when mounted troops were included. He also had three times the enemy's artillery." Woodward quotes his source as "David L. Bullock, Allenby's War: The Palestine–Arabian Campaigns, 1916–1918 (London: Blandford Press, 1988), 127." --Rskp (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I've changed this to a direct quote which should solve all problems. --Rskp (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney should retract and apologise for, the assertion he made on 2 Auagust, that my citation of Woodward 2006 p. 191 "does not contain the word blitzkrieg." --Rskp (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
See above Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Jim, if you check Amazon and search there, you'll find the search places the phrase listed on page 191, just where RoslynSKP said it was.  I'm uninvolved and know pretty much nothing about this topic, but I can check a source for a word. While Google Books search does not, for me, return that result, you'll note that it also doesn't show page 191, and in my experience adding sources to unreferenced bios I find that Google Books (and the OCR results associated with them) often contain errors.  Alternatively, if you have a paper copy, perhaps the page numbers changed with editions.  I'm sure it's something like that.  Please, folks, let's assume good faith and move on.  --j⚛e deckertalk 05:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that Joe Decker. Very much appreciated. --Rskp (talk) 06:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Ditto Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Tabsor (1918)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 17:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my initial comments up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I really appreciate your time and interest. --Rskp (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
 The first sentence should make it clear which war and which front is being discussed in the article.
Done.
Lead, "Megiddo developed into a..." This sentence gets a bit confusing towards the end - I'm not sure which army was following a plan, or if they both were, and I think there might be a comma or two missing.
Reedited.
Lead, "during which three divisions of the XXI Corps." During which they what?
Fix syntax.
Reorganization, "numbered from 150 upwards," This should probably be "numbering", and 150 what? Men?
Clarify.
British plans, ""Concentration, surprise and speed..." Some introduction to this quote would be nice.
Moved quote.
British plans, ", each division consisting of one British infantry and three British Indian Army infantry battalion in each brigade," - This is redundant from the Reorganization section.
Cut duplicate info.
No, you didn't, you just reworded it a bit. The fact that the divisions were composed of a mix of Indian Army and British infantry was just given to the reader a few paragraphs before. Therefore, it is not necessary to repeat it here.
Sorry, info now cut.
German and Ottoman forces - First and second paragraphs. Is it Asia Korps or Corps? Also, probably best to combine the information on the K/Corps in these paragraphs, rather than splitting it up with information on Pasha's army in the middle.
Done.
German and Ottoman forces, "(See the Battle of Nablus for a description of this fighting.)" - This could be integrated more elegantly, without the parenthetical see also feel.
Done.
German and Ottoman forces, "Claims have been made..." - by whom?
Reorganised into new subsection and cut all refs to claims.
By Wavell and Bou.
Right, but three "claims" in the same paragraph is too many. First of all, are these claims disputed? If not, why do we need to say that someone "claims" it, rather than just stating it as fact? Second, if the "claims" is integral (it is disputed or not known for sure), then attribute it - "Ottoman military historian John Smith claims...".
This paragraph looks better, although the section header could stand to be tweaked - maybe "Ottoman challenges" or "Ottoman strength and supply problems" or something similar. However, a new "claims" has been added into the Reorganisation of EEF infantry section and needs to be dealt with. Again, attribute it in-text, explain a possible controversy (John Smith says x; however, Paul Roberts disagrees and says y), or otherwise address. Dana boomer (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Another editor has made this claim before and I've cut it because it does not appear in the source cited. I'll cut it again. --Rskp (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The subsection "Other views" contains descriptions of the German and Ottoman force which contradict the description of this force in the preceding subsection. The other views would be better cut altogether rather than have readers confused; they are only there to ensure the article is broad in its coverage. --Rskp (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Reorganised into new subsection and cut all refs to claims.
German and Ottoman forces, "It is claimed, without taking..." First, who claims? Second, I have absolutely no idea what this sentence is trying to say. It is really convoluted, lots of numbers, really long, and it gets so twisted around that I don't know what comparison it's trying to make.
Re edited.
German and Ottoman forces, "It is also claimed..." - by whom? This is the third "claimed" in one paragraph!
By Erickson.
See above re:claims.
Reorganised into new subsection and cut all refs to claims.
Tabsor defences, "It has been suggested" - by whom?
By Bou.
See above re:claims.
Reorganised into new subsection and cut all refs to claims.
Bombardment, "a rate of between 50 yards (46 m), 75 yards (69 m) and 100 yards (91 m) per minute." - "Between" cannot be used while giving three values. Just give the two outer values, the middle one (75 yds) falls between them anyway.
Reedited.
Still sloppy. I see no problem with just giving the two outside values of the range - the specifics are then presented later in the battle section and so no information is being removed with not giving the 75 yd value. Dana boomer (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I've had another go at this. These three different speeds were linked to the different speeds the infantry advanced at. --Rskp (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Asia Corps, Samakh is a dab page, and this link should probably be higher in the article, on the first occurrence of the term.
Moved link.--Rskp
(talk) 04:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it's still there, where it says "during the night of 22 September to Samakh,". It is the first occurrence, though, this was my mistake.
Sorry I see the problem. Done.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
What makes refs #7, 9 (The Long, Long Trail) a reliable source?
Not one of mine. I don't know so I've deleted all refs.
Could has asked before deleting but here is the response.
The owner Chris Baker

Was the chairman of the Western Front Association [1]
Given over 1,000 talks on First World War [2]
Web site cited in other publications [3]
Web site cited in books [4] [5]
Cited by Google scholar search [6]
Web site recommended by Intute which confirms his membership of the University of Birmingham's Centre for First World War Studies. [7]
Has had at least one article published in a journal [8]
Published author - The Battle for Flanders: German Defeat on the Lys 1918 [9]
Founder of  Fourteen-Eighteen which provides research services for private clients, universities, broadcast media, museums, regimental associations and others who wish to locate, obtain and understand documents from the period of the First World War. [10]
In my view, the above links establish this as a reliable source, and if the editors want to reintegrate the information, I have no problem with that. Dana boomer (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Done. --Rskp (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

While technically the image criteria are met, I am surprised that there aren't more images in the article. There are lots of maps, but these are rather dry (although helpful to a reader attempting to visualize the troop movements discussed in the article), and there are some fairly large walls of text. Are there no other images of the troops, the commanders, the area, etc? Dana boomer (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I've managed to dredge up a photo of more destruction and a couple of the commanders, but nothing on the troops, sorry. --Rskp (talk) 07:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, those new images help break up some of the walls of text. Much better! Dana boomer (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, I am now done with the prose review (I apologize that it took me a couple of days, real life intervened a bit!). The second half of the article was much stronger, prose-wise, than the first, so I only added a couple of comments above. Once the remainder of the prose comments and the one reference issue have been addressed, I think we should be good to go for GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies Dana boomer for the misunderstandings. I think they may be all ok, now. --Rskp (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Looking much better. Still a couple of tweaks that I would like to see (just the few unstruck things, above). Dana boomer (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, looks good! I'm now passing the article to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Dana boomer. I really appreciate your time and interest. All the best, --Rskp (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

During this edit [11]  "At 08:40, the 7th (Meerut) Division had advanced to a position to allow the 4th Cavalry Division to advance." was changed to "At 08:40, the 7th (Meerut) Division had advanced to a position to allow the 4th Cavalry Division to advance." If "to capture Afulah and Beisan" was added at the end of the sentence, readers would know where the 4th Cavalry Division went. --Rskp (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes that would be more clear. I've made the change here [12]. Anotherclown (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. --Rskp (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)