Talk:Battle of Rafa

Location

There is a problem with the way the coordinates have been added to this page. Can anyone help, please?--RoslynSKP (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I now realise its a problem with the coordinates I added. They are wrong but I don't know how to fix them.--Rskp (talk) 06:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have cut the following sentence because it relates to the Magdhaba engagement - 'The commander of the Desert Column, Lieutenant General Philip Chetwode, who had arrived the day before accompanied Anzac Mounted Division as observer.'--Rskp (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

all fixed!--Rskp (talk) 05:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The location was south of Sheikh Zuweid which is wrong. I fixed it to the right place.Tushyk (talk) 10:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Strength and Turkish leaders

Sirs, I have the following comments about the article:

1) About strengths: how many soldiers were in those five British mounted brigades? I have an impression that the British and New Zealanders were actually outnumbered, but maybe just the opposite was true? 2) Is it really impossible to establish who was the commander on the Turkish side? 3) It seems to me that the article is a little bit overenthusiastic as if written to the glory of New Zealand's soldiers. I have absolutely no doubts about their valour, but it seems to me that an encyclopaedic article should be, so to say, more dry and sober.

I hope that my comments do not appear meaningless to you. Sincerely yours, Kosmaty (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I'm sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you, but I've been away.

1. It appears from Falls the official British historian that the Ottoman 31st Regiment (2nd Division) supported by one mountain battery fought against the 3 light horse brigades and the Camel Corps; and that 1,635 prisoners were captured.
2. The overall commander of the force which attacked Romani was Kress von Kressenstein although the regimental commander is not known.
3. I agree that this article needs to be substantially re-edited and although the New Zealanders were particularly effective in this engagement the article must be neutral in tone before gaining good article status.

Thank you for your interest.--Rskp (talk) 03:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Captured what?

"They encountered a Bedouin camel patrol zero point five miles (0.80 km) from Sheikh Zowaiid, which was captured." This is unclear. Did they capture the camel patrol or Sheike Zowaiid? Folklore1 (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks have added clarification. --Rskp (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Rafa/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 05:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Good Article Checklist

• Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
• Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; 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; and it contains no original research.
• Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Disambig links:No issues
• Reference check: No issues

Comments: This article has several issues. It fails WP:LEAD. Several of the images are of questionable relevance, blurry and undescript, they add little if anything to the article. Words to watch and possible OR on pieces like: "probably the powerful new Taube Albatros D.III," - this is speculation. The article needs a copy edit for other issues like "On 19 January aerial reconnaissance found the Ottoman Army had evacuated El Kossaima and the strength of the main desert base at Hafir el Auja had decreased." This needs a citation saying "who" thought that, " However, it was thought that Ottoman garrisons would continue to hold onto the Nekhl area in the center of the Sinai Peninsula, including the villages of Bir el Hassana, Gebel Helal, Gebel Yelleg and Gebel el Heitan." From word choice "However, on 17 February when the columns were approaching the area, reconnaissance aircraft found the Ottoman garrisons had retired." And lack of inline citations per MINREF for "To address the problem of Ottoman Army units in the rear of the advancing EEF, a Raid on Nekhl was carried out by two columns of light horse and yeomanry. The two columns moved out from Serapeum, near Ismailia on the Suez Canal, with three aircraft in support to attack Nekhl 60 miles (97 km) to the east." And that's just one paragraph. Entire quotes from "R. M. Downes" that should be paraphrased as they add nothing of context that could not be summarized in paraphrasing. More word choice with "Chauvel had reconnoitred the El Magruntein". Final assaults also has citation and specific and copy editing issues.

Plenty of sections have several problems all in one: "These guns were also well positioned to provide cover if pressure by the Ottoman reinforcements from Khan Yunus and Shellal proved too strong for the two troops of Wellingtons, or if the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade was forced to retire to the coast."

• "At about 16:30 the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade launched its final assault on the central redoubt from the north-west, the north and the north-east, without artillery support. Instead, they made determined use of machine guns on the firing line, crossing fire to get better targets, and cooperating with the machine-guns of the 1st Light Horse Brigade to cover the advance to within 400 yards (370 m) of the main Ottoman position."
• "Just after 08:00 the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade circled northwards, moving into position for their attacks on the C4 and C5 groups of redoubts and trenches, while the 1st Light Horse Brigade moved into position to attack the C3, C2 and C1 groups. After these objectives were captured, the two brigades were to attack the central redoubt. "
• " By 12:15 the Wellington Mounted Rifles Regiment had come up to the front line, between the Canterburys on the right, and the Aucklanders on the left, within 600 yards (550 m) of El Magruntein, while the 2nd Battalion of the Camel Brigade advanced to extend the line held by their 1st Battalion."

All these issues need to be cited and plenty more, because they are very specific claims. Given the situation, the article needs someone who has these sources to verify and address the issues and some of it does seem to be OR. I'll leave this up for awhile incase someone can fix it, but otherwise I'll have to fail it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that ChrisGualtieri. There is a question about the subject block which makes it impossible for me to attempt to edit the article at the moment, but I've had a look at your comments.

• Not sure why the lead is a problem - could you indicate what they are?
• Yes, the Main Ottoman defensive position and trenches and the Map of deployments for Rafah attack which are a bit dim could be cut.
• "On 19 January aerial reconnaissance found the Ottoman Army had evacuated El Kossaima and the strength of the main desert base at Hafir el Auja had decreased." This was apparent from the air during an aerial reconnaissance and the source does not provide any further detail.
• GHQ, EEF "thought that Ottoman garrisons would continue to hold onto the Nekhl area in the center of the Sinai Peninsula, including the villages of Bir el Hassana, Gebel Helal, Gebel Yelleg and Gebel el Heitan." I would add this but at the moment, not sure if I'm allowed.
• The citation for the information is provided at the end of the paragraph; Cutlack 1941, pp. 53–55. Do you want the source copied? I agree this is a weak last paragraph. The link with the preceding paragraph needs to be made clearer, but again, at the moment I'm not sure I am allowed.
• The two Downes quotes, about the handling of the wounded is tricky as he is the only source and there is so much detail.
• There should be a comma before "Chauvel had reconnoitred the El Magruntein ..."
• There needs to be a comma after "provide cover" as the guns' position was dual purpose.
• The descriptions in the Battle, Final Assault and Attack begins sections, reflect information provided by the sources, so it is difficult to know how these could be changed. There is no original research here.

The citations are at the end of the paragraphs but they could be added at the end of the sentences, if required. --Rskp (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do not comment on this again, see the other GAN for my detailing as to why. This is in the hands of Milhist and editors like Demiurge1000 for obvious reasons. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Gday - I made a couple of edits to (hopefully) address one or two of the issues in the final paragraph. Unfortunately I don't have access to very many of these sources though so can't do much more. Pls let me know if you think this is sufficient though [1] or if anything more is req'd for this specific point. Anotherclown (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay, but I think some of the issues still remain, with the lengthy quotes and some unspecific detail. Its not truly bad, but I don't think its yet at GA criteria with such a reliance on that padding. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Map cut

A map has been cut which showed the geo-political territorial zones within the region. Given that this battle invaded the opposition's territory, this map provides important context. --Rskp (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Downes cut

Although the GAR calls for the two Downes quotes to be paraphrased they have been cut altogether. This is despite them both giving details about the complex evacuation of the wounded after fighting many miles in advance. --Rskp (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Citation cut

"These successful attacks were supported by aircraft, which bombed the redoubts and trenches. The aircraft had recently been fitted with wireless (they had to drop messages during the Magdhaba attack in December), and during the afternoon reported progress to Desert Column headquarters." [Cutlack 1941 pp. 49–51, Falls 1930 Vol. p. 254, Anzac Mounted Division War Diary Appendix 24, pp. 3–8 AWM4-1-60-10] The citation to the War Diary has been cut from the article. However, the editor has left most of the information without checking what came from the war diary and what came from the two other sources which are still cited. --Rskp (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Missing Reference

Cite Note 57 is to "Wavell, 1968." But the book is not listed in the references. Is it this one perchance? The Palestine Campaigns by Field Marshal Wavell? Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted. I've added the reference now. Anotherclown (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Bombing at El Arish Comment

The section on the post-engagement bombing at El Arish states that the planes used were the Taube Albatros and gives a model of "D.III," described as "powerful new." Albatros did make a Taube, but they were known also for their introduction of the Albatros D.III, which was a much different aircraft than the Taube. Since the latter were introduced in 1916, it makes more sense that the aircraft were Albatros D.IIIs, rather than the Taube, developed in 1909. Anyone have an idea as to which? Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Result summary

Instead of edit warring, can I please ask that those seeking to change the summary please provide a rationale here so that it can be discussed? In the meantime, I have semi protected the article for a week. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)