# Talk:Battle of Samakh

In keeping with other articles in this series should this not be titled the Capture of Samakh per Falls in Armageddon, 1918: The Final Palestinian Campaign of World War I. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The Battle of Semakh is included in Coulthard-Clark's The Encyclopaedia of Australia's Battles. --Rskp (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reference for the caption for this image? According to the Palestine Railways article it was destroyed by the Palmach during the Night of the Bridges on 16/17 June 1946. Of course it is possible that it was also destroyed during the fighting in September 1918 (which would make sense) but I think this needs to be clarified and supported by a reference pls. Anotherclown (talk) 06:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've replaced it with a photo taken at the time. --Rskp (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Samakh/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 14:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll review this article shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that Tomobe03. --Rskp (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
No duplicate links found (no action required)
Checklinks reports no problems with external links (no action required)
No disambiguation links found (no action required)
Image review:
File AwmP00225.005GermanHqrsSamakh.jpeg (in the infobox) requires US-PD licence. Given its age it is PD in the US so please add one.
Ditto for AWMP01474.009SamakhPrisoners.jpeg (in the Dismounted attack).
No other issues with image sourcing, licences and captions. (no action required)
I've just checked these two photos and they both have
"PD-US-1996|pdsource=yes [and] Category ordered by date|Files with non-standard public domain statements|2012|04|28". Not sure what more is needed. --Rskp (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. At the time of the review, the US-PD licences appeared garbled (at least in my browser), everything seems in order now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The article appears to be stable (no action required)
Article references are in order (no action required)
Why not link Lieutenant General (and other military ranks) at the first instance of the term?
Added links to ranks and geo-specific links. --Rskp (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I assume that "Five years in Turkey" in Commander of Yildirim Army Group, Liman von Sanders' "Five years in Turkey" is a book title. If that is so, it should be given in italics as Five years in Turkey instead of quotation marks per MOS:ITALIC.
Done. --Rskp (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Is there any info available on first names of General Kiazim, Major Prigge and Rittmeister Hecker? If so, those should be included per WP:SURNAME.
Rittmeister should definitely be wikilinked.
Done. --Rskp (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
In With about 700 German and 1,300 Ottoman soldiers of the 16th and 19th Divisions, von Oppen succeeded in retreating towards Beisan via Mount Ebal during 21 September but were forced to leave behind all guns or baggage. it appears "were forced" should be changed into "was forced" as it appears to refer to von Oppen (singular).
Done. --Rskp (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
In "Asia Corps retreat" section, the Eighth Army should be linked.
Done. --Rskp (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Convert templates, such as the one regarding 10.5cm in the "Reconnaissance by 4th Cavalry Division unit" should be used with abbr=off parameter to present spelled out unit of measurement (per WP:UNIT)
Done. --Rskp (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
In "Australian Mounted Division advance to Jisr el Mejamie" section, Lieutenant General Henry Chauvel should be presented simply as Chauvel per WP:SURNAME, because he is already referenced in the background section.
Done. --Rskp (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Likewise, in the aftermath section it should be Chauvel instead of "General Chauvel".
Its in a quote. --Rskp (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
You're right. Sorry about that one.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The same applies to Allenby referenced twice by first name in the background section.
Fixed --Rskp (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Use full names of H. W. Hodgson and W. Grant in the article prose instead of initials and wikilink the names please (per WP:SURNAME).
Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Use full name of General Liman von Sanders in the background section at the 1st mention of the name (no first name given right now) and truncate the reference to von Sanders further down in the article prose (per WP:SURNAME)
Fixed first mention. Truncating his name to von Sanders has been questioned and another editor confirmed 'Liman von Sanders' was his surname. --Rskp (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Oops. Well, full name and rank should be used for the first mention (both in the lead and the body prose) and surname only everywhere else. Right now everything in this respect is fine, except the 1st instance in the article lead is still missing his rank.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry! Added. --Rskp (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is not mentioned by the article, yet the infobox specifies him as a commander. Why?
He commanded the Seventh Army and by this last day of the Battle of Megiddo, and during the major fighting retreat of the Seventh and Eighth Armies, he would have been closely involved, but has not been specifically mentioned in the sources. --Rskp (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
In that case, why don't you note he commanded the Seventh Army. For instance "The Seventh Army, commanded by..., retreated ..."? I assume there must be a source that he commanded the 7th Army available somewhere--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Complete oversight. Have added info which was in the source cited but his rank is not mentioned so I've added both likely Wikipedia links. --Rskp (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Why is "Jevad Pasha" term used instead of Cevat Çobanlı? From the link and the article linked I assume the proper name is Cevat Çobanlı. If the secondary literature refers to him as Jevad Pasha, note both names and establish who refers to him as Jevad Pasha.
Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
In 'A' and 'B' Squadrons there are is no need for quotes per WP:QUOTEMARK: A and B Squadrons is fine. Naturally, the same applies to C Squadron.
Done. --Rskp (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Please provide {{convert}} templates for 77-mm and 105-mm in "two four-gun 77-mm, one four-gun 105-mm howitzer". Just use adj=on parameter instead of abbr=on/off parameter to produce adjective form of the measurement.
In the aftermath section, in "2 miles (3.2 km)" conversion, figure 2 should be replaced by the word two per WP:ORDINAL. Use {{convert/spell }} template to achieve that. Please note that there is a space between /spell and the first parameter pipe.
Thanks for the help with these templates. Someone else added the abbr=on in the Reconnaissance subsection above. --Rskp (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikilink Beirut in the aftermath section.
Done. --Rskp (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Notes are fine. Still, I think they require quite frequent navigation between the main prose and the notes - Do you think any of those six notes could be incorporated in the article prose directly? This is no dealbreaker though, and this is merely a suggestion.
Thanks for pointing that out, have incorporated most of them. --Rskp (talk) 04:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Nice article overall, I enjoyed reading it!--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I really appreciate the positive feedback. Thanks a lot for taking the time to do this review. All the best, --Rskp (talk) 04:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'm also a bit concerned about the "Main articles: Battle of Jisr Benat Yakub, Charge at Irbid, Charge at Kaukab, Charge at Kiswe, and Capture of Damascus (1918)" template in the middle of the Aftermath section, because they do not appear to be "main" topics whose summary is presented in the prose following the template. Or did I get a wrong impression? Would those be better off in a "See also" section instead?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I've moved the main articles to see alsos, and moved them down a bit so I think they fit in a bit better. --Rskp (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
All clear then! Nice work.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Samakh. 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/20110316151433/http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/war_diaries/first_world_war/subclass.asp?levelID=1454 to http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/war_diaries/first_world_war/subclass.asp?levelID=1454
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) 05:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)