Talk:Third Transjordan attack

Machine Gun Corps

Was the 86th [or 36th?] Machine Gun Squadron part of the Machine Gun Corps or Chaytor's Force? --Rskp (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

dubious tag: size of Chaytor's Force

Jim Sweeney asserts "A corps is minimum two divisions." without giving a source. Chaytor's Force consisted of one mounted division one brigade of infantry and four battalions of infantry. It was one brigade of infantry short of a corps therefore as Bou says "nearly equivalent to two divisions" and two divisions is a small corps. --Rskp (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney asserts "the 2nd NZ MG Squadron was part of the 5th Light Horse Brigade, formed from the NZ elements of the Imperial Camel Corps Brigade" without giving a source. Kinloch says the squadron was detached. --Rskp (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hard to believe you do not know what makes an Army Corps read the link or any other literature on the subject.[1] [2] [3] BOU says a "force nearly equivalent to two divisions" which is a long way from saying its the size of a Army Corps.

• Hard to believe you do not know the XX Corps was made up of two divisions for the attack on Nablus! Chaytor's Force was one brigade short of two divisions. Therefore Chaytor's Force was very close to being the size of a small corps. --Rskp (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No the force was one divisional headquarters, four brigades and four independent battalions. There was no corps troops only a limited amount of artillery no engineers, only a fraction of the transport required 19 lorries compared to 150 in the Desert Mounted Corps and 240 in the infantry corps. But most of all it was part of the Desert Mounted Corps. But anyway 11,0000 men in Chaytor's Force is not a corps, one reason beyond all others is that all of the units in it were part of the Desert Mounted Corps detached for operations. Who says so only the army commander Allenby, refs all in the Chaytor's Force article.

Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Four infantry battalions in the 20th Indian Brigade, plus two Royal Fusiliers infantry battalions and two British West Indies infantry battalions = two thirds of an infantry division, and with the addition of the Anzac Mounted Division including their staff and headquarters = one corps less one third of an infantry division i.e. a small corps. --Rskp (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Its not two thirds of an infantry division its a brigade and four independent battalions which did not operate as one formation. There was no second brigade or division headquarters. No brigade support troops for the four independent battalions, never mind anything for the supposed second division. No corps support troops. A corps is more than just two divisions, it has its own support troops, artillery, transport, engineers etc. No matter how you try to dress it up, it was not a corps it was a force from the Desert Mounted Corps detached to operate in the Jordan Valley. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The four battalions were not independent; they were part of Chaytor's Force and operated under Chaytor's orders. Read the article.

The artillery was not limited, it included 263 Battery RFA, 10th Indian Mountain Artillery Brigade, 96, 102 and 103 Section, A. A. Guns, 105 Heavy Battery, 2 sections captured 75mm and 1 section captured 5.9 guns.

In addition to the units already listed were the 26sth Machine Gun squadron, and support troops 35 A.T. Coy, Royal Engineers. In addition, transport included 13 tractors, 30 trucks, 20 lorries, 8 trucks and 300 donkeys.

The ration strength on the night of 29/30 September was 11,500 total casualties for September were 1,177 making 12,677 in Chaytor's Force.

"On the 16th September the GOC Anzac Mounted Division took over command of the whole of the Jordan Valley defences as well as Desert Mounted Corps camps at Talaat ed Dumm and Kilo 17 Jericho Jerusalem Road and Desert Mounted Corps Reinforcement Camp, Jerusalem, the force being designated "CHAYTOR'S FORCE." Anzac Mounted Division war diary AWM4-1-61-31. Chaytor's Force was the SIZE of a small corps. --Rskp (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes all those are a small force not a corps, which should have around 40,000 men (two infantry divisions without supporting troops). What you doing in adding A to B and saying it was C. That's WP:SYNTH and you can not do that. If you have a credible reference that says it was a corps then add it. There are now plenty giving historians/authors opinions.Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not Synth at all. You are only talking about an infantry corps, but this was a COMBINED FORCE OF INFANTRY AND A MOUNTED DIVISION so 40,000 is misleading - 18,000 would be about a mounted corps of three divisions; there were about 6,000 men in the Australian Mounted Division at the time. So Chaytor's Force of 12,500 - a credible accurate source, not historians' opinion - is approaching corps size. Certainly not "small." --Rskp (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You are just guessing at numbers we know from Talk:Battle of Sharon (1918) the size of a mounted division is ~7,000 that's 28,000 for the four divisions in the Desert Mounted Corps. A corps is more than just the minimum of two fighting divisions, it has support and corps troops included. Its not a CREDIBLE ACCURATE SOURCE unless it says Chaytor's Force was a corps, which it does not. There is no source in all the available literature that says it was a corps, so what your doing is WP:SYNTH. Another way to resolve this is take it to WP:MILHIST for a third or more opinions. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• The ration strength on the night of 29/30 September was 11,500 total casualties for September were 1,177 making 12,677 in Chaytor's Force. [Anzac Mounted Division war diary AWM4-1-61-31] This is not a guess - look up the war diary and check. Similarly on 14 September the effective strength of the Australian Mounted Division was 6,737. [Australian Mounted Division war diary AWM4-1-59-15] Desert Mounted Corps had three divisions in 1917-1918; the Yeomanry Division, the AMD and the AnzacMD. To describe Chaytor's Force as a small mobile force is dubious. --Rskp (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The numbers I was talking about was the guess at how many should be in a mounted corps. It the context of this battle it was the smallest force XX Corps, XXI Corps, and its parent Desert Mounted Corps. So a small mobile force which is referenced is not wrong, there are more references that call it a reinforced mounted division. Either way its a small force not a corps. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Chaytor's Force is definitely not a "small mobile force" which could describe a couple of squadrons. See Talk:Battle of Megiddo (1918) where, recognition of the scope of responsibilities Chaytor's Force quite independently shouldered has been given, and "corps-sized detachment" suggested. --Rskp (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggested is WP:SYNTH there is still no reference for it being a corps or even corps sized.Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The reference to a small mobile force remains dubious. --Rskp (talk) 05:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

2nd NZ MG Sqdn

Re the 2nd NZ MG Squadron I do not need to give a ref that's what a dubious tag is for. The 5th Light Horse Brigade has it listed in its ORBAT but that's badly referenced.

• On 2nd August the New Zealand Section of the Imperial Camel Corps became a new Machine Gun Squadron, called 2nd New Zealand Machine Gun Squadron, under the command of Major Davis.[4]
• the 2nd New Zealand Machine Gun Squadron, which was attached to a brigade comprising a French Regiment of Cavalry and the 14th and 15th Light Horse Regiments.[5]
• the Camel Corps was reduced in strength, and its New Zealand companies became the 2nd NZ Machine-gun Squadron, supporting the 5th Australian Light Horse Brigade [6]
• In addition to the Brigade and its attached units, two Camel Companies were formed from Mounted Rifles reinforcements. These companies formed a part of the I.C.C. Brigade and fought in the Sinai and Palestine campaigns. On June 10th, 1918, they were disbanded and formed into the 2nd M.G. Squadron, and as such were attached to the 5th Australian L.H.Brigade.[7]
• Then there is the ORDER OF BATTLE OF EGYPTIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE, SEPTEMBER 1918 by James Hanafin used by User:RoslynSKP to cite several articles

5th Australian Light Horse Brigade

14th Australian Light Horse Regiment (New South Wales)

15th Australian Light Horse Regiment (New South Wales)

1st Regiment Mixte de Cavalrie du Levant (left October 1918)

2nd New Zealand Machine Gun Squadron[8]

• There is also the Battle of Tulkarm (1918) The 5th Light Horse Brigade commanded by Brigadier General Macarthur Onslow with the 2nd New Zealand Machine Gun Squadron attached cited to Falls 1930 Vol. 2 p. 487

Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, thanks for clarifying the 2nd NZ Machine Gun Squadron Jim Sweeney. I've also confirmed it from Powles p. 280. --Rskp (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Copy Edit Complete

I'm through with the copy edit. This will make the GAR go more smoothly for all involved. I tagged a couple of things, and that's not a mark of any kind of disapproval, it's just for communications purposes. I can see what kind of work you've put into the page, and I know that you'll address those issues. A couple of tips you may find helpful in the future:

• Sentence length: if you feel tempted to use parentheses or semicolons, it's a sign that your sentence is becoming tortured. A sentence is supposed to contain a single, complete idea, so be aware of the tendency to cram more ideas into a sentence than can fit. Where you have grammar errors, they are almost always the result of piling on one subordinate clause after another. By the end, they no longer relate to the original subject, their verbs often disagree in tense, and they may be half-statements that don't relate to a clear subject at all. Readers lose attention when this happens, and as much work has gone into this, I'm sure that you want people to read it.
• Use direct statements: This is a prose article, not a timeline. Make your subject clear by leading the sentence with it, instead of leading with subordinate clauses such as "On 21 September," "Meanwhile," and so on. You're not writing about a date, you're writing about an event that occurred on that date, so write about the event and work the date into the sentence. It's alright to use these sparingly for variety, and is the most appropriate option for certain situations, but when sentences are continually led with indirect statements, it gives an effect of hesitancy and weakness.
• Quotations: the lengthly quotations encased in blockquotes are fine, but there are a lot of shorter quotes throughout the article, and I'm not sure that a single one of them is better as a quote than it would be as a paraphrase. These quotes disrupt the flow of sentences because of the distraction of the quotation marks, and their introduction of archaic language. They also paint you into a grammatical corner, because the rest of the sentence has to be fit around them. You may feel that it adds something to use the principals' own words, but this is an article, and few of those military men were wordsmiths, least of all in the heat of battle.

An example from the second-to-last paragraph: At Ain es Sir, the Wellington Mounted Rifles Regiment captured a number of Circassians "suspected of involvement in the May attack and escorted them to Jerusalem for trial."[1][2][Note 1]. There's nothing here that a paraphrase couldn't say as well or better. A paraphrase could work in an explanation of what the "May attack" was, but the use of a quote requires the addition of an explanatory footnote. This is suboptimal, and there are several such awkward workarounds throughout the article.

Good work on the article, and good luck with the GAR. Dementia13 (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your interest and time in editing this article and I really appreciate your very valuable comments. All the best, --Rskp (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Third Transjordan attack/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 13:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll read through and start the review properly shortly. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking this on. Much appreciated. --Rskp (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Final bit. I still think the lead needs some work. I've tried a quick editing job below. It's lost the wikilinks, but have a look and see what you think. I've tried to condense it down to focus as much as possible on the TTA itsef.

"The Third Transjordan attack was an offensive carried out by the British Empire's Chaytor's Force against the Yildirim Army Group of the Ottoman Empire, between 21 and 25 September 1918. The attack formed part of the Battle of Nablus, itself part of the wider Battle of Megiddo, which was fought between 19 and 25 September in the last months of the Sinai and Palestine Campaign of World War I.

"The British attack began on 21 September, with an assault on Kh Fasail. The next day British forces attacked and captured the Ottoman Empire's 53rd Division of the Seventh Army. Retreating Ottoman columns were attacked as they attempted to cross the Jordan River at the Jisr ed Damieh bridge. The bridge and several nearby fords were captured, cutting the main Ottoman line of retreat to the east. Leaving detachments to hold the crossing points, Chaytor's Force advanced over the River Jordan, capturing the Fourth Army garrison at Shunet Nimrin before advancing to take Es Salt, a former Fourth Army headquarters. Pursuing the Fourth Army's VII corps, Chaytor's Force continued their advance to attack and capture Amman on 25 September. Several days later, the Ottoman's Southern Force, consisting of the Fourth Army's II Corps, surrendered to Chaytor's Force at Ziza, effectively ending military operations in the area.

"The victories during the Third Transjordan attack resulted in the occupation of many miles of Ottoman territory and the capture of the equivalent of one Ottoman corps. Meanwhile the remnants of the Fourth Army were forced to retreat north to Damascus, in disarray. The Desert Mounted Corps went on to capture Damascus on 1 October. The surviving remnants of Yildirim Army Group were pursued north to Haritan when Homs and Aleppo were captured. Fighting continued on 26 October, with the Charge at Haritan, but on 30 October the Armistice of Mudros was signed between the Allies and the Ottoman Empire, ending the Sinai and Palestine campaign." Hchc2009 (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. I appreciate your point and have rewritten the intro following your suggestions to refocus it on the TTA. --Rskp (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

• The lead needs a little work. Part of the problem is that there are three overarching battles being mentioned even in the first sentence - Battle of Nablus, Battle of Sharon and the Battle of Megiddo, combined with the campaign name and the WWI label. This makes it much harder for the typical reader to understand how the Third Transjordan attack (TTA) fits in. I'd strongly advise just listing one overarching battle in the first paragraph, e.g. "The Third Transjordan attack took place between 21 and 25 September 1918, during the Battle of Nablus in the last months of the Sinai and Palestine Campaign of the First World War."? That would carry the key information while still focusing on the TTA, and if someone wants to know where the Battle of Nablus fits in, they can click on the link and instantly see that it was part of the wider Battle of Megiddo. You'd then need to ensure that whichever battle you chose is then used to begin the second paragraph.
  • The TTA was part of the Battle of Megiddo and if I cut references to it then the TTA looses its reason for occurring. Also, there are overlaps where the Battle of Sharon, the Battle of Nablus and the TTA for instance, all mention the Wadi el Fara line of retreat, so the importance of the capture of the Jisr ed Damieh during the TTA would be lost if the Battle of Megiddo is not mentioned. Its unfortunate that the relationships between these battles can't be shown in the "part of" section in the infobox, but a consensus ruled against it. --Rskp (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Have substantially rewritten the intro to hopefully incorporate your thoughts and clarify the relationship between all these battles. --Rskp (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• "The Battle of Nablus began in the Judean Hills half a day after the main Battle of Sharon, when the British Empire's XX Corps attacked the Ottoman Empire's Yildirim Army Group's Seventh Army defending their line in front of Nablus." It's unclear from this if the British Empire's attack is the beginning of the Battle of Nablus, or the main Battle of Sharon.
  • added brackets to hopefully clarify this. --Rskp (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• "The main Battle of Sharon was fought from the Mediterranean Sea section of the front line..." This second paragraph starts again with a monster sentence (and some missing ]]s!). But, I'm not convinced you need most of this paragraph in the lead. The first paragraph has already positioned the reader, explaining that the TTA is part of a larger battle, explaining what the wider objective was and the lead should ideally keep the focus on the TTA. You could then continue with the third paragraph pretty much as is, and perhaps break it into two at "With the Fourth Army's VIII Corps in retreat..."
  • This has been substantially rewritten to hopefully clarify the fighting. --Rskp (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• " This Third Transjordan attack followed two unsuccessful EEF attacks across the Jordan River during the first Transjordan attack in March and Second Transjordan attack in April 1918 which included the First Battle of Amman." Chronologically, this felt out of place in the third para. Could it go at the end of the first paragraph of the lead instead?
  • Yes, I see your points. Working on it. Intro has been rewritten to hopefully clarify and simplify the information. --Rskp (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Done. --Rskp (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• "Background" - as written, it wasn't very clear how this linked to the TTA. "Several Ottoman army commanders in Palestine lost their commands after the Ottoman defeats..." for example, doesn't make clear why this led to or shaped the TTA. It feels as though the first two paragraphs might make better background to the wider Battle of Nabus/Megiddo article than this one, perhaps?
• "Major offensive operations in Palestine also became a low priority for the British Army in March, when the German Spring Offensive in France caused their postponement." This read awkwardly, probably because the section hadn't yet said that offensive operations were a strategic priority before March.
• The Background has been rewritten. Thanks for pointing out these weaknesses. --Rskp (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• "commanded by General Edmund Allenby" - you've mentioned him before, but this time he gets a wikilink and a full name - should be on the first use of his name.
• Done --Rskp (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• "The front line held by the Egyptian Expeditionary Force..." a very long sentence, needs splitting up somewhere.
• Done --Rskp (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• "well sighted enemy long range guns" - "sighted" or "sited"?
• Done --Rskp (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• "The Ottoman front line..." - again, a long sentence and needs breaking in two
• Done --Rskp (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• "strongly wired entrenchments" - any way of getting in that these are barbed wire entrenchments?
  • Well I'm not sure that it was, the source doesn't mention it.
• " by advanced posts which were also wired on" - not every reader will know what an advanced post is.
  • I guess it would be in front of the main line, but I don't know. Unfortunately I am limited to what the source says
• " individual wired-in redoubts " - again, worth considering what a reader will think this is (a redoubt surrounded by its own circuit of barbed wire? A redoubt out on its own, with barbed wire? a redoubt for an individual? etc.)
  • its how the source describes the defences
    • My advice would be to either place it in quotes (thereby communicating to the reader that we don't know quite what it was), or simply to just "redoubt". Hchc2009 (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Direct quotes added with citation. --Rskp (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• "sangars and posts" - not clear to me how a sanger and a post are different in this context.
  • no, I agree but its how the sources describe the positions. --Rskp (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
    • My advice would be to either place them in quotes (thereby communicating to the reader that we don't know quite what the difference is), or simply to just "posts" or "defences". Hchc2009 (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Direct quote added with citation. --Rskp (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Mounted divisions move out of the Jordan Valley: this bit threw me. Does it belong here, on in the Background? It felt like this section started most naturally with the "Chaytor's Force" elements.

Agreed. Moved to background. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "While these attacks by the XXI Corps and the breakthrough by Desert Mounted Corps, were being fought" - I'm not sure the "these attacks" works, as the previous paragraph has broken the link with the attacks.

Agreed. Rewritten.--Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "was "nearly equivalent to two divisions,"" - I'd usually advise giving the source of a quote in the main text (e.g. "historian X states that it was "nearly equivalent to two divisions"")

Added historian's name. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "ration strength" - could you wikilink this or add a footnote saying what this is? (NB: I know, but many non-military folk won't)

changed syntax. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "A Receiving Station" - I'm not sure this should be capitalised.

cut capitals. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Jordan Valley deployments, Preliminary operations, Plan: the very short sections made this a bit hard for me to read. Any chance to combining them to allow a flow of paragraphs?

Yes, done. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The infantry were organised into twelve " - MOS would have this as "12"

Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "At Baghalat, 6 miles (9.7 km) west north west of Umm esh Shert, the Seventh and Fourth Armies touched." - I'd start with the subjects of the sentence ("The Seventh and Fourth Armies touched at Baghalat...")

Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "vital tunnels and viaducts" - as per above, important to know who the quote is from in the main text

Rewritten. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "the German and Ottoman front line had been cut by infantry, and the cavalry" - slight POV tone here, which would be removed by specifying whose infantry and cavalry were involved.

Changed syntax. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "There they would be captured" - just to check: did you really mean the 7th and 8th Armies were captured?

No. Thanks. Qualification added. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Battle of Megiddo 19 to 20 September; Battle of Nablus right flank 19–21 September - I'm not sure that this material should be here, as opposed to in the background. The article is about the TTA, which starts on the 21 September, and I'll admit I found it a bit confusing to be through the background, the prelude, the orders of battle and then be presented by another two sections of further background. It would read much more easily if the article just had background, prelude, and then kicked off with the TTA proper on the 21 September as the main part of the article.

Moved subsections to background. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Battle of Nablus right flank 19–21 September. The first para is chronologically a bit odd. It starts off on 21 Sep, goes back over the last few days. The second para then doesn't really explain what date it is happening on.

Reorganised so chronology clearer. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "drove in outposts" ?

Tweaked this. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Chaytor's Force continued to vigorously patrol their front line..." Somewhere in the middle, this paragraph loses its way. It starts off with patrolling, and then starts to describe a sequence of attacks. It feels like it needs to be broken in two somewhere, or the initial sentence edited to help the reader, particularly given the detail.

rewritten. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "reported the whole area from Jisr ed Damieh bridge north to Beisan and from the Jisr ed Damieh bridge east across the Jordan Valley to Es Salt, quiet" - the "quiet" is stranded at the end, because of the intervening text

fix grammar. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• " the Wadi Fara elbow" - wasn't sure what an elbow was in this context

Added map to sort of explain this. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "fires also burned at the Balata dumps" - the "burned" is superfluous here

Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "unaware that Desert Mounted Corps had already occupied Beisan" - at this point, so is the reader (I don't think we've been told that it has been occupied yet)

Added a link to the article. Will this do? --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "by one section of machine gun squadron" - is squadron right here? You could surely have "a machine gun squadron" or "machine gun squadron A", but this doesn't parse right to me.

It would have been the brigade's machine gun squadron. Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Umm esh Shert and Mafid Jozele fords: I simply couldn't remember where these were by this point, or which bit of the force the Battalion Royal Fusiliers were under.

Added info to clarify these. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "the weakening Ottoman position at Mellaha" - hadn't the Imperial forces already pushed guns into Mellaha by this point?

Agree. Changed syntax. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "despite being strongly resistance" - not quite right in grammar here

Reworded. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Rujm el Oshir camp" - I'm not sure what this was, but I don't think its mentioned elsewhere

Added description of location and moved Cutlack's map which locates these places. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Ain es Sir camp" - ditto, no real idea where this is

ditto

• "The Ottoman Fourth Army had remained in position during the first three days of fighting west of the Jordan River" - a little confusing, because the article had the 4th Army retreating a few sections ago. Also unclear if this fighting was to do with the 4th Army or not.

Cut this confusing duplicate info. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Units of the Fourth Army then began to move " - not 100% when "then" is

Rewritten. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Chaytor's Force became aware of the retreat of the Fourth Army at 23:35 on 22/23 September, when orders were issued for attacks on Shunet Nimrin, Kabr Mujahid and Tel er Ramr. " - could mean that the orders were issued informing the Force of the retreat, or that they became aware of the retreat and then issued orders to attack.

Reorganised sentence. --Rskp (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• "mobile sections", "the immobile section". There's a risk of confusion between section/"part" and section/"small military organisation". You might want to chose a different label. I'm also not sure about "immobile", but it may be what's used in the literature of the time. (I'd say that one might be mobile, or you might lack mobility, but immobile sounded odd)

'Section' refers to part of a military unit. Some sections were designed to be stationary 'immobile' sections while others were designed to move 'mobile' sections. --Rskp (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• " The CRA" - I can't remember coming across this before.

Link added. --Rskp (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Before Haifa on the Mediterranean coast, was captured by the 14th Cavalry Brigade on 23 September during the Battle of Sharon, Chaytor's Force had crossed the Jordan River to climb to the Plateau of Moab and Gilead on their way to capture Es Salt that evening." - is the first half of this part of the TTA? If not, I couldn't quite work out what the link was.

It adds context. --Rskp (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• "in three columns on a 15 miles (24 km) front" - "across a 15 miles front"?

Rewritten. Hope its clearer. --Rskp (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Chaytor's Force entered the hills of Moab in three columns..." the detail in this paragraph meant that it didn't tell the story as well as a simpler version might have. I'll come back to this later with some ideas.

ditto --Rskp (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Chaytor's Anzac Mounted Division headquarters moved along the main road to Es Salt from Jericho via the Ghoraniyeh crossing of the Jordan River at 14:28" - unclear if this timing is when they started, crossed the river, or got to somewhere else.

Detail added. --Rskp (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• " concentrated at the Auja bridgehead," - it's been a long while since the bridgehead was mentioned; worth considering if the reader will have forgotten what it was by now.

Description added. --Rskp (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• " This extensive rearguard position was attacked and outflanked by advanced guard of the Canterbury Mounted Rifles Regiment. " - I couldn't remember if the regiment was part of the Brigade in the previous sentence or not.

Identified brigade. --Rskp (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The 20th Indian Brigade, which had been marching up this road, was ordered to send working parties to unblock the road." - repetition of road.

Tweaked sentence. --Rskp (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• "where they took out a section" - "destroyed" rather than "took out"?

Done. --Rskp (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The 1st Light Horse Brigade..." As a new section, probably worth contextualising the date here.

Done. --Rskp (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Only a rearguard of the Fourth Army was captured at Amman." - "a rearguard" or "the rearguard"?

Yes, others were encountered further north by Desert Mounted Corps. --Rskp (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• " would have been forced to detrain south of Deraa" - "were forced"?

Fixed. --Rskp (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Here they would find" - "Here they found"?

Fixed --Rskp (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• "several dumps" - "ammunition dumps"?

Not sure. --Rskp (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• "dropping in total four tons of bombs" - could safely be just "dropping four tons of bombs", and would avoid the "in" being misread

Fixed--Rskp (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Red Crescent train" - worth linking, I think this is the first instance of this

Thanks, done. --Rskp (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• "was reported to have been looted " - unclear from this if the report was that the Imperial forces had looted it and killed the occupants, or if it was found looted

reworded note --Rskp (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• "A total of 6,000 or 7,000 fugitives" - fugitives didn't feel quite right here (unless they were really escaped fugitives). "retreating soldiers"?

reworded. --Rskp (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• " three engines" - do we know what sort of engine?

Added info and source. --Rskp (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• "cacolets" - worth linking

added --Rskp (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• "On September 21st the NZMR Brigade,..." this long quote felt odd; might just be me, but it worth summarising it, or just using part?

Shortened quote. --Rskp (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

(c) it contains no original research.

• None found. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

• Looking good to far. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Further... Having read through this article a couple of times now, I have to admit I found parts of it hard going in terms of prose. I think there are probably a few reasons for this:
• A) There are a lot of minor places mentioned, few of which I suspect me (or a typical reader) will be able to place. For example, In the "Ottoman front line", the article describes how "Bakr Ridge in the Judean Hills was situated to the west of the salient at El Musallabe"; this follows on from a lot of other locations in the same paragraph. I simply can't work out from context where the Bakr Ridge is, other than it being in the Judean Hills. When the Bakr Ridge is finally taken, we then learn that Grant Ridge, Baghalat and Chalk Ridge are taken; again, I don't know where these are. The result was that I kept on flicking back and forth with "search in page", trying to understand the progress of the battle. My advice would be to take a careful look at when these sorts of details are necessary for the story, and when they're preventing the reader "from seeing the wood for the trees".
  • Have moved "Detail of Falls Sketch No. 24" which shows the position of Bakr Ridge from the beginning of the Background section to adjacent to the section you describe. Does this help? --Rskp (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• B) In some cases, I'm not sure the precise timings aren't distracting from the story. e.g. "At 20:30 Meldrum's Force commanded by Brigadier-General W. Meldrum..." There's a lot of detail here anyway, but then three sets of precise times adds further information the reader needs to take in. I suspect (but happy to be challenged) that the reader simply needs to know this happened in the evening of that day.
  • The precise timings have been relaxed somewhat but it is germane to know how quickly the force got organised, got moving and got to where they were supposed to be. --Rskp (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• C) Some bits could be trimmed slightly, to focus the reader on the main events. See "Capture of Kh Fasail on 21 September", for example, and the bit about "with patrols pushed towards Jisr ed Damieh and Umm esh Shert" - I think this detail about a minor manouvre distracts from the overall story line.
  • The battle of Jisr ed Damieh and the attack Umm esh Shert are both described subsequently in detail in the next two sections. This first mention describes the moves towards these places.

Similarly "The brigade then advanced south east along the road from the bridge 8 miles (13 km) across the Jordan Valley to the foothills of Moab, with patrols to the east and north, to make the 3,000 feet (910 m) climb to Es Salt." - the details of the patrols dilutes the key information - their advance into the foothills and the climb to Es Salt.

• • The flank patrols were guarding the main force as it advanced into enemy territory. Its just describing the deployment of a mounted force on the move. --Rskp (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• This sort of thing is always a balancing act, and I'd be interested in your thoughts. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• • The article reflects as much of the factual information available in the secondary sources as it takes for me to understand what is going on. At that point I hope readers will also understand the dynamics of the operations. I am mindful that these operations occurred in a relatively unknown theatre of WWI, when technology was vastly different even from the Western Front, let alone our computer age. All these factors have encouraged more detail, rather than less. --Rskp (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

• Appears neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Stable. 07:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

Checked. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Reverting edits

Its not a valid reason to revert someone's edit just because you do not agree with them. If needed changes can be discussed on talk. Remember WP:OWN. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney has made drastic cuts to this article without consultation. He had cut corrections to grammar, the former name of a brigade, the correct name of a commander, and the make up of Chaytor's Force which fought the Third Transjordan attack. When Jim Sweeney makes cuts the grammar mess is not fixed afterwards. Jim Sweeney has also added a too long tag. All this sudden cutting by Jim Sweeney on 17 January during a GAR appears to be deliberately timed as he visited the article in October and December 2012 without finding the necessity to add the too big tag or cut the make up of Chaytor's Force. Why weren't these cuts made then? Jim Sweeney used the description of Chaytor's Force which he now cuts, to create the article Chaytor's Force in August 2012. --Rskp (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion has nothing to do with improvements to this article

But Jim Sweeney copied this OOB and used it without acknowledgement to create Chaytor's Force. Now Jim Sweeney wants to cut it from the article Jim Sweeney copied it from, again without acknowledging what is really happening here - the covering of tracks.--Rskp (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC) SEE ANSWER BELOW Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Jim Sweeney has split an article without discussing the possibility of taking this action on the talk page. [9] --Rskp (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Jim Sweeney has collapsed the following comment: "Jim Sweeney has split an article without discussing the possibility of taking this action on the talk page. [9] --Rskp (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)" It is relevant to this discussion as its an example of Jim Sweeney failing to discuss taking a radical action before splitting an article which is a far more drastic edit than the one complained about here. --Rskp (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Finally even though it has nothing to do with this article , a check on the talk page of the other article shows discussion started 11 months ago. Thank you. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Eleven months ago Jim Sweeney copied the OOB to create the article Chaytor's Force. --Rskp (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC) I think you will find that Chaytor's Force was created here [10] 28 August 2012. With references, Jukes, Perret and Hanafin that are not used in this article. Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Again Jim Sweeney has collapsed this discussion: "Finally even though it has nothing to do with this article , a check on the talk page of the other article shows discussion started 11 months ago. Thank you. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC) "Eleven months ago Jim Sweeney copied the OOB to create the article Chaytor's Force. --Rskp (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC) "I think you will find that Chaytor's Force was created here [2] 28 August 2012. With references, Jukes, Perret and Hanafin that are not used in this article. Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC) But Jim Sweeney you do not deny that you copied Chaytor's Force OOB from the Third Transjordan attack article to create the Chaytor's Force article without acknowledging where you got the information. --Rskp (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll continue with the rest of the review over the weekend, but a key GA requirement is stability. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There are no drastic cuts, they are called edits by the way.

• There is no need for a detailed OOB for Chaytor's Force as the article is linked. Also see 3b Wikipedia:Good article criteria]]
• The correct name is Harry Chauvel see WP:COMMONNAME

No. Harry was a nick name. His name was Henry Chauvel. --Rskp (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

So you acknowledge he used Harry not Henry WP:COMMONNAME Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• There never has been a 10th Mhow Cavalry Brigade, it was the 5th (Mhow) Cavalry Brigade. So you had the wrong name written.

I am not making any of this up. Its not me, but the source quoted which describes the unit. --Rskp (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

So its an inaccurate source used. Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Size it is too big at 90,394 bytes see Wikipedia:Article size and article size is not part of the Wikipedia:Good article criteria.

Size is relative. There is no firm cut off and Jim Sweeney's current actions of adding a too big tag to so many articles only in the Sinai and Palestine Campaign area of Wikipedia is strange. --Rskp (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

As above WP:Article Size Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Abuse of Rollback

Jim Sweeney has used his Rollback power to edit this article to cover his unacknowledged copying of information to create an article. The edits Jim Sweeney has rolled back were not made by a banned user, nor have been either problematic or vandalism. Jim Sweeney has used rollback to reverse good-faith edits which are helpful to the encyclopedia. Jim Sweeney's action is against the guidelines for the use of rollback. --Rskp (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Rskp, how do you identify a rollback edit on the log? (NB: I don't know, so can't quite work out which edit you're referring to). Hchc2009 (talk) 08:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

When a number of separate edits are undone together. The edit I'm referring to undid my edits of 06:39, 06:49, 06:50, 06:51, 06:54, 07:04 and 07:30 on 18 January 2013 here [11] in one go just over an hour later at 08:58 on 18 January 2013. --Rskp (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And you do not believe reverting another persons edits just because you did not like them were not problematic? That why the discussion in the section above was started. Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No idea what you are talking about Jim Sweeney. This is about abuse of rollback. --Rskp (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Maps, Referencing, overuse of quotes and grammer

Obviously a lot of work has gone it this so congratulations to the editors. That said there are a few issues which I'm surprised made it through the review. In particular:

• Quite a few of the maps look like very low quality scans from a book (they even have the indent of the spine)! The detail is impossible to make out so rather than adding to a readers understanding of the events, they detract from it and make the article seem amaturish.
• The reference section is poorly presented. There are numerous issues with MOS compliance, including using lower case, inaccurate presentation of titles, series and volumes, not using the correct fields in the cite template, and incorrect presentation of publishers to mention just a few of the issues.
• This article suffers from an overuse of quotes. There are a number of large block quotes from letters, and many inline quotes as part of sentences. This may be acceptable for pulp history for consumption by the wider market, but surely on wikipedia it is a bit excessive. Would it not be better to rewrite and summerise the useful information they contain?
• Despite copy editing and a thorough review there are still issues with the grammer used. I have made some edits to highlight the problems. 175.35.63.121 (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
• One further point - the infobox is incomplete. Where are strengths and casualties? 175.35.63.121 (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your interest. I've had a look at your work and reinstated meaning where it has been lost during your corrections of grammar. Thanks again. --Rskp (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with these points 175. Thanks for having a go at correcting some of these issues too. I have reformatted the references but if I have missed any pls feel free to go over it again. Hopefully this point is resolved though. The other issues will probably need to be addressed by the main author of the article. Anotherclown (talk) 07:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest and positive contributions. I've moved back sources from further reading and external links to references as readers may not find them in these other subsections. By the way the Beni Sakhr are a group or tribe of Bedouin not a person, which you would know from your close reading of the article. --Rskp (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Why thank the bloke but undo most of his edits? Not sure why I'm surprised though... (although you are of course right about the Beni Sakhr) Given that the IP doesn't look like they are coming back (they haven't made any other edits at least) I'm wondering if you are going to respond their other (quite valid) points? I don't see any action on these. Anotherclown (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• You should check out the IP which did indeed make other edits. But lets hope who ever it was comes back with a username. As some of the edits were not beneficial they were changed but they led to improvements as I didn't just simply reinstate the information as it stood but took the opportunity to reevaluate and improve it. When I get a chance I'll look at those criticisms, but right now I'm a bit too busy. --Rskp (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Not sure what you mean by: "you should check out the IP" but whatever. Ultimately you seem to be of the opinion that you're the only one qualified to assess if an edit is "beneficial". I reviewed the edits made by 175 and the vast majority seemed quite helpful. Why should such editors return if they aren't allowed to contribute? It seems that nearly every time someone makes an edit to an article you are working on you take "the opportunity to reevaluate" it (or in less veiled terms own it). BTW - take that last comment to mean whatever you want but don't remove it as "a personal attack" (like you usually do with any criticism). If you are offended pls feel free to take me to ANI and to quote me verbatim. Anotherclown (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Retreat/Withdrawal

All references to 'retreat' have been changed to 'withdrawal' amid claims of POV. As the two terms are interchangeable, according to the dictionary, I can't see what the problem is myself. But if an editor wants to keep his standing as the 264th most active editor, well I suppose something has to be done. --Rskp (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Retreat is very much a military POV term. They retreat while we withdraw. Its correcting your faults that must be keeping me there. Thanks for that. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)