Talk:Auckland Mounted Rifles Regiment/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk • contribs) 12:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
• Disambiguations: one dab link [3]:
  • Battle of Beersheba
• Linkrot: external links check out [4] (no action req'd).
• Alt text: Images lack alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (not a GA req'ment - suggestion only).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: a couple of duplicate links to be removed:
  • Auckland
  • small arms
  • 2nd Light Horse Brigade
  • Harry Chauvel
  • 1st Light Horse Brigade
  • malaria

 Done

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • This is a little awkward: "During the four years of war, the regiment had 434 dead from all causes and 627 were wounded..." Perhaps consider: "During the four years of war, the regiment sustained 434 dead from all causes and 627 wounded..."
  • Prose and punctuation is a bit choppy here: "On 25 May Major Frank Chapman, with Mackesy ill, arrived from Egypt, to assume command of the regiment.[20] He was followed, five days later, by one officer and 107 other ranks of reinforcements." Perhaps consider something like: "With Mackesy ill, Major Frank Chapman arrived from Egypt on 25 May to assume command of the regiment. He was followed five days later by one officer and 107 other ranks as reinforcements."
  • Couple of sentence fragments here which should probably be linked: "After successfully capturing a Turkish position at "Old No. 3 Post" on 6 August, they fought off several counter-attacks. Until 9 August, with a strength of only sixty-six men from the 310 who started the battle, they were withdrawn to a rear area."
  • "...where they were joined by three officers and 216 other rank reinforcements on 5 October..." → "...where they were joined by three officers and 216 other ranks as reinforcements on 5 October."
  • Missing word here I think: "Then, once more back up to full establishment, moved forward to defend the Suez Canal in the area of the Great Bitter Lake." Consider: "Then, once more back up to full establishment, it moved forward to defend the Suez Canal in the area of the Great Bitter Lake."
  • I'm a little unclear about this sentence: "At the same time, it also lost some of its veterans, including those who were wounded and convalescing in England, when regiment transferred to the infantry and artillery on the Western Front." Did the regiment transfer to the Western Front or just individuals? (I'm fairly sure its the later but the sentence says "when regiment transferred".
  • Typo here: "Galloping forward for about a one mile...", consider: "Galloping forward for about one mile..."
  • "On 3 April the squadrons were issued Hotchkiss machineguns...", inconsistent presentation of machine gun here. In most other instances you use "machine-gun" (which is preferred according to my--admittedly Australian--dictionary).
  • A few other instances of inconsistency in machinegun vs machine-gun throughout.
  • Is the terminology correct here: "However, the regiment had six dead and twenty-two wounded, including a squadron leader...", specifically "squadron leader". In my experience a cavalry squadron is commanded by an "officer commanding", while "squadron leader" is an air force rank (major equiv). If you don't want to use the formal term "officer commanding" I would suggest squadron commander would be a more acceptable alternative.
    • Being, for my sins, an ex cavalryman, squadron leader is what the commander of a squadron is called. At least in the British Army. Wing commander, was also a cavalry postilion. He commanded two of the regiments four squadrons. So two wing commanders in a regiment. When the experiment started almost 100 years ago, they borrowed the terms. But happy to change to commander if required.
      • Interesting, must be a British thing (or maybe the terminology has changed - have a little experience in the cavalry myself but obviously not Brit Army). If the terminology is correct in your opinion I'm quite happy it staying. Anotherclown (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
        • As an aside re "Wings" I seem to recall that the Australian Army had something similar pre WWI with "half battalion" commanders in infantry units, but I think that got ditched pretty quickly (I believe the AN&MEF may have used it but haven't come across it for AIF). Anotherclown (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Punctuation is a little off here: "While the rest of the brigade retired to the west, the regiment remained at the front. manning observation posts until 11 November..." (errant full stop?)
  • Missing word here: "Brigade ordered an attack on the main...", should be "The Brigade ordered an attack on the main..."
  • "Lieutenant-Colonel McCarroll, recovered from his wounds, resumed command...", should just be "McCarroll" removing rank after formal introduction at first use per WP:SURNAME.
  • "...resumed command of the regiment on 15 January...", suggest adding year here for clarity.
  • Sentence fragments here which should probably be merged: "At midnight on 21 March, the infantry tried to cross at Ghoraniyeh. However the river was flowing too fast for their swimmers to get across."
  • Terminology here... "...in exchange for the death of one man, the troop leader...", consider "troop commander" instead.
    • Same as squadron leader ... troop leader commands a cavalry/mounted troop. But happy to change etc.
      • As above. Happy with troop leader if it is correct terminology (I know USMC use it and it does admittedly occasionally get used interchangbly here for Troop Comd). Anotherclown (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Sentence fragments here should probably also be merged: " In front of 3rd Squadron Hill 3039, was well defended with numerous machine-guns. So the 4th Squadron were sent to support them, while 11th Squadron moved out to the right flank to give covering fire, from some high ground."
  • Missing word here: "The second raid across the Jordan on Es Salt began 29 April...", consider: "The second raid across the Jordan on Es Salt began on 29 April..."
    •  Done with a couple of replies.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

  • All major points appear to be cited using WP:RS.
  • No issues with OR that I could see.
  • ref # 99 ^ "Camel artillery ready to fire". New Zealand History. Retrieved 11 November 2013. - Probably need to add publisher and date of publishing. From looking at the link - Ministry for Culture and Heritage published it and gives a date of 15 July 2013.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • All major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.
  • Article uses summary style effectively and level of coverage seems appropriate.
  • Some minor points:
    • In the lead maybe give the date it was formed for context (i.e. August 1914)?
    • "On 23 August the sixty-six men of the regiment with the Wellington Mounted Rifles...", why was this, were they detached? It isn't mentioned (that I could see).

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • No issues I could see.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues here.

• 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:

  • Images all seem to be PD and have the req'd information and seem appropriate to the article.
    • There are a couple which have been tagged (incorrectly in my opinion) as possibly unfree and may need to be removed if they are deleted - ‎File:Hill 3039 at Amman.jpg and File:Powles p.205amman.jpg, I have added some bibliographic information myself but you may wish to be involved in the deletion discussions.
  • Captions mostly look fine - a couple are a little short though and could be expanded to provide a little more context (for instance date and location):
    • Lieutenant-Colonel James Neil McCarroll
    • The Damieh bridge
    • Men from the regiment in the desert
      • These look fine now. Anotherclown (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Looks quite good to me, a few prose issues above to deal with first but otherwise there shouldn't be any problems. Once you have had a go at these I will probably do another copy-edit just to makes sure everything has been caught. Of course I'm happy to discuss any issues you disagree with. Good to see units like this getting covered here. Anotherclown (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • All done, I believe with a couple of replies. Thanks for the review. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Those changes look fine, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)