# Talk:Battle of Ismailia

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Ismailia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Harrison49 (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2011 (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 article is well written and follows the correct style.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
The article is well referenced.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
The article covers the major events of the battle and is focused.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
The article follows a neutral point of view.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
The article does not appear to be affected by any edit warring.
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): 
Images are used well and freely licensed through public domain ruling.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
A very interesting read, and now a Good Article too. Harrison49 (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

While the article covers the combat from 18/10 to 22/10, the described result of this battle, “Egyptian tactical and strategic victory”, ignores the Israeli advancements prior to 22/10. On 22/10 the Israelis were halted south to the Cairo - Ismailia road, but they made advancements before 22/10 and succeeded to capture Serapeum. Eventually, the Israeli positions of 22/10 were norther than those of 18/10. I am not sure the the Egyptian victory on 22/10 had such high value. On the article, it is already mentioned that Israeli bombardments have made the Cairo - Ismailia road unusable for wheeled vehicles, so capturing the road area was not so necessary. For the total isolation of the 2nd field army, and its cutting from all supply measures via land, like tracked vehicle, the Israeli had to push north and reach the Mediterranean, so capturing the Cairo - Ismailia road was not enough. However, it is not mentioned whether there were large stocks of supplies in Ismailia like those that were in Suez. If there were such stocks on Ismailia, and Ismailia would being captured by the Israelis, the 2nd field army would lose a lot of supplies. In that case, an Egyptian victory would be significant. Megaidler (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I understand, Ismailia was Second Army's main supply base, and major supply routes on the way to Second Army from Cairo passed through Ismailia. Its capture basically meant Second Army would be faced with a similar encirclement to Third Army or would be forced to retreat across the canal. To that end, the Israelis wanted to capture Ismailia, and the Egyptians wanted to defend it at all costs. According to the sources used, the end result of the battle is that the Israelis failed to capture Ismailia; a tactical and strategic victory for the Egyptians. Dupuy mentions that the road was made unusable by artillery, but that doesn't mean the significance of the Egyptian victory was lesser, unless a source explicitly says otherwise. --Sherif9282 (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
In 67 the Israelis planned to capture the entire Sinai peninsula but failed to capture Port Fouad, and no one questions their victory back than. During the battles described on the article the Israelis made advancements in comparison to their initial position on 18/10. All sources claims that the Israelis tried and failed to capture Ismailia, no doubt. There is no doubt that Ismailia was a place of much more significance than Serapeum, or Port Fouad. However, the whole supply transportation for the 2nd army was not dependent on the identity of the army that holds that road according to 2 sourced brought by Sherif9282. Even Ismailia was a main of supply base, receiving supplies from the Nile area, and sending supplies to all divisions of the 2nd army, Dupuy and O'ballanceclaims claimed that the Cairo – Ismailia road was unusable due to Israeli artillery. Wheeled vehicles couldn't reach Ismailia through that road because the Israelis did block it - by heavy bombardments. It seems that Dupuy and O'ballanceclaims gave less significance to the Israeli encirclement of the 3rd Army as well as to Egyptian maintaining of the Cairo - Ismailia road. Only one source used the term “strategic” for describing the Egyptian success on 22/10 and it is Gawrych:
A combined Egyptian commando and paratrooper force, for example, registered a tactical victory of strategic import by stopping Sharon's repeated attempts to capture Ismailia, whose loss would have seriously imperiled the logistical lifeblood to the Second Army.
He even didn't use the term “strategic victory”. The use of this term was Sherif's decision only and it is WP:Puffery. I am expecting Sherif to qoute the exact words of Dupuy and O'ballanceclaims regarding the situation of the Cairo – Ismailia main road. Megaidler (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Ismailia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110507130100/http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/gawrych/gawrych_pt1.pdf to http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/gawrych/gawrych_pt1.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Battle of Ismailia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070610033855/http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/gawrych/gawrych_intro.pdf to http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/gawrych/gawrych_intro.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110507130122/http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/gawrych/gawrych_pt2.pdf to http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/gawrych/gawrych_pt2.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110507130200/http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/gawrych/gawrych_pt3.pdf to http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/gawrych/gawrych_pt3.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110507130226/http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/gawrych/gawrych_pt4.pdf to http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/gawrych/gawrych_pt4.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110507130253/http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/gawrych/gawrych_pt5.pdf to http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/gawrych/gawrych_pt5.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110507130315/http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/gawrych/gawrych_pt6.pdf to http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/gawrych/gawrych_pt6.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110507130346/http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/gawrych/gawrych_pt7.pdf to http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/gawrych/gawrych_pt7.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090319143113/http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/gawrych/gawrych_notes.pdf to http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/gawrych/gawrych_notes.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)