![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2a/Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg/50px-Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg.png) | This
Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. | ![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/65/Waricon.svg/50px-Waricon.svg.png) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nomination withdrawn at nominator's request.
Anotherclown (
talk)
00:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator(s):
Georgejdorner
I am nominating this article for A-Class review on behalf of George per his edit
here. George has worked extensively on this article in an effort to bring it up to A-class standard and is requesting a review to see if it up to scratch. Cheers,
AustralianRupert (
talk)
23:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
reply
Many thanks to Rupert for his technical help,and many cheers for him.
I have quintupled the size of this article while working in information from the most recent biography of the subject. It is completely and reliably cited. I ruthlessly edited it before presentation. That included spinning off his victory list into a subsidiary article a la
Manfred von Richthofen. I believe it is professionally written, and worthy of promotion. More than that, it is an amazing tale of martial courage and fiery patriotism, about a hero who successfully scored 16 of his 44 victories flying one-handed.
Georgejdorner (
talk)
02:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
reply
Question why don't you take the article to GA review first? The natural article quality lifecycle is from Stub -> Start -> C -> B -> GA -> A -> FA; check
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment.
MisterBee1966 (
talk)
11:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
reply
- There is benefit to a GA review. If the article passes GA the rating applies to all projects such as Aviation, Biography, Milhist, etc. Following a successful GA review the article is identified as a GA article by adding the GA icon to the upper right hand corner of the article and this is visible to all other languages as well. The A-class review only applies to Milhist and in some cases to the affiliated projects. With this I am not saying that the article is not of A-class quality, I am trying to say that you miss an opportunity to show the quality of the article to a greater audience.
MisterBee1966 (
talk)
17:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
reply
Comments - Dank (
push to talk)
- "while hospitalized for four months. Sneaking from hospital,": I'm American, but reasonably comfortable with BritEng. I generally don't recommend concessions to American ears in BritEng articles, except in cases where Americans won't have a clue, are likely to misread, or are likely to think they're looking at a typo (which is of course a problem on Wikipedia ... things that look like mistakes draw edits, whether they're mistakes or not). I'll also recommend something if there are several things together that may strike copyeditors as problems (depending on who you ask). Most English-speakers think "from hospital" needs a "the", and there are two other things that some copyeditors will react to here: the close repetition of "hospitalized ... hospital", and "sneaking from" (which is unidiomatic in AmEng). So ... you make the call. I'd probably just strike "Sneaking from hospital" (particularly since "once again bolted from medical care" in the next paragraph reinforces the idea). - Dank (
push to talk)
14:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
reply
- "he shot down 14 more enemy airplanes by 8 August 1918. Two days later, he shot down his final two victims on his final flight before being downed. Two days after that": I'd go with: "he shot down 16 more enemy airplanes before being downed for the last time on 10 August 1918. Two days after that" - Dank (
push to talk)
15:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
reply
Nominator's note: Please withdraw this nomination, as I am no longer participating in Wikipedia.
Georgejdorner (
talk)
21:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
reply
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to promote at this time
Hawkeye7 (
talk)
20:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator(s):
Al Ameer (
talk)
Prior nomination
here.
Along with a few other editors, I've been working on this article for a few years now and intend to nominate it for FAC soon. However, I would like an A-class review from this wikiproject beforehand to make sure it is ready for FA. The article's been a GA since 2009, but didn't pass it's initial A-class review in 2010. Since then, all the concerns of the previous reviews have been addressed, the article has been substantially expanded with new material and sources, and many parts have been rewritten/reorganized. Although it's still quite large (after all, Nasser was arguably the most monumental Arab political figure of the 20th-century and ruled Egypt for 16-18 years), the article's prose has been trimmed down to around 80 KB. It's second peer review (and a thorough copyedit from WP:Copyeditors) was concluded a few weeks ago and there has been additional followup at the talkpage. I looked over both the A-class and FA criteria, and believe the article now meets them both. --
Al Ameer (
talk)
00:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
reply
It's a massive article, so might take me a while to get through it all! First pass comments. That said, it doesn't seem overly long for such an important figure.
- Writings; is there nothing else you can say about his writing except list the books? Is there no commentary on his writings, for example?
- Nasser strove to keep his career separate from his family life; "strove" implies a struggle, is there any commentary on the difficulty he had achieving this?
- Personal Life; just checking... there is no extant criticism of his personal life?
Will add more later. --
Errant (
chat!)
10:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
reply
- There is available English-language info on his memoirs and the Philosophy of the Revolution. My only concern is article size, but if you think it's best to add commentary, I'll add a sentence or two for each. If the alternative is removing the section altogether, I don't mind doing that either. I clarified the part about his career/family life to be closer to the source. His personal life is probably the only part of his life where there is no extant criticism, even by his biggest detractors. He certainly didn't take care of his health though and had many ailments (I assume due to genetics and chain smoking). I look forward to the rest of your review. --
Al Ameer (
talk)
14:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
reply
Image check
- File:Nasser_portrait2.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same for File:Gamal_Abdel_Nasser.jpg, File:NasserLawSchool.jpg, File:N-10009.jpg...actually, all works with the PD-Egypt tag - some include it, most don't
- File:Turco-Egyptian_ka'im_makam.gif: source? What is the legal status of this design?
- File:Nasser_cheered_by_supporters_in_1956.jpg: the provided source link gives a copyright notice for a non-CIA source
- File:Egypt,_Syria_Merge_In_New_Arab_Republic.webm: licensing tag is wrong
- File:Presidents_Gamal_Abdul_Nasser_and_Shukri_al-Quwatli_receiving_Yemeni_Crown_Prince_Mohammad_Badr_in_Damascus_in_February_1958_congratulating_them_on_formation_of_the_United_Arab_Republic.jpg: source link is broken
- File:Nasser_and_Sallal_in_Sanaa.jpg also needs initial publication information
- File:President_Nasser's_visit_to_the_Suez_front_with_Egypt's_top_military_commanders_during_the_War_of_Attrition.jpg: why does this have a CC tag?
- File:Nimeiry,_Nasser_and_Gaddafi,_1969.jpg: this was photographed in Libya, not Egypt - check licensing and publication
- File:Presidential_Standard_of_Egypt.svg is sourced to a redlink.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
19:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
reply
- I believe I've now fixed the issues for all the photos of Nasser and replaced "File:N-10009.jpg" because I was unable to ascertain where it was taken (most likely Egypt, but possibly Sudan). With "File:Nasser_and_Sallal_in_Sanaa.jpg" I wasn't sure what you meant exactly, but I've clarified that the photo was taken in Yemen and adjusted the licensing accordingly. I don't know anything about the Presidential Standard of Egypt file (don't even know if it's a real thing) so I just removed it from the Egyptian Presidents Template. I also know nothing about the "Turco-Egyptian ka'im makam" file. Should I remove it as well? --
Al Ameer (
talk)
21:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Actually I missed "File:Nasser_cheered_by_supporters_in_1956.jpg". I removed the photo from the article for now. The photo appears to have been attributed to a source other than the CIA, but it was taken in Egypt. Does it still qualify for PD-Egypt if this is clarified? --
Al Ameer (
talk)
21:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
reply
Comments -- I'll try and do a full review at some stage. In the meantime, you have a series of Harv errors, which you can check by installing
this script. Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
08:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Lead/infobox
- In the infobox, you could reduce the sea of blue by removing duplicate links; I'm also not a fan of little flag and rank icons, though I acknowledge they're not forbidden and some people seem to like the little pictures.
- Generally no need to link modern-day countries, e.g.
Britain,
France,
Israel,
Syria, etc. These examples are just from the lead so you could check the rest of the article as well. Linking obsolete political entities such as the
Soviet Union is fair enough though.
- Nationalization of Suez Canal
- the Egyptian people had a right to sovereignty over the waterway, especially since 120,000 Egyptians had died building it -- that figure seems much higher than I've heard elsewhere; does the source report Nasser himself using the figure?
- Pan-Arabism and socialism
- In January 1957, the US adopted the Eisenhower Doctrine and pledged to prevent the spread of communism and its "agents" in the Middle East. -- not sure what the justification is for scare quotes around "agents"; suggest simply drop the quotes or else use the term "proponents" or some such (without quotes).
- Nasser initiated the
Helwan steelworks, which were on their way to becoming Egypt's largest enterprise -- how could he "initiate" (i.e. start) something that was already "on the way"? Suggest either he must have supported/helped it as an existing enterprise, or he initiated and it subsequently became Egypt's largest enterprise.
- In the fall of 1958 -- could we have more specific dating for those not in the same hemisphere as Egypt?
- The new Iraqi and Syrian governments soon sent Nasser delegations to push for a new Arab union on 14 March. -- to clarify, did they send their delegations on 14 March, or did they want a new union to be proclaimed on 14 March?
- He received the
Hero of the Soviet Union award the same year. -- I feel this needs some explanation as we've previously highlighted his supposed opposition to communism and establishment of NAN, neither of which (one assumes) would've endeared him to the Soviets.
- Done, ehh almost. I just removed the Hero award since I don't have anything else on it to make it relavant to the rest of the text. Unfortunately, I could not find the exact date to clarify "fall of 1958." Still working on that. --
Al Ameer (
talk)
02:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
reply
- I'm not fanatical about seasonal dates so don't sweat it too much. If you can just alter the Americanism to "autumn" it'll be okay with me (other reviewers may complain when it gets to FAC but I won't)... ;-) Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
13:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Modernization efforts and internal dissent
- In 1961, Nasser sought to firmly establish Egypt as the leader of the Arab world and to promote a second revolution in Egypt with the purpose of merging Islamic and socialist thinking to satisfy the will of the general populace. -- I assume what we're trying to say here is that Nasser saw himself as attempting to satisfy the will of the people? I draw the distinction because I'm sure all rulers see themselves as doing so, whether it's truly the case is another matter. For me, it would sound more neutral if we simply dropped "to satisfy the will of the general populace".
- Nasser guided al-Azhar to create changes in its syllabus... -- I don't have access to the source but is "guided" a euphemism for "ordered"? I ask particularly because soon after you say he "forced" the organisation to issue a fatwā.
- Sometime during this year, Nasser suffered and survived a heart attack. -- since we don't seem to have a specific date for this, and you mention it in the Personal life section (along with another such incident), I'd suggest dropping it from here.
- Six-Day War
- In early 1967, the Soviet Union issued multiple warnings to Nasser of an impending Israeli attack on Syria -- spotchecking Kadil, he describes the Soviet reports as "unconfirmed", and appears to have Nasser's man Fawzy declaring that the reports of Israel mobilising against Syria were "baseless".
- Legacy
- Nasser transitioned Egypt from British-occupation to serving as an influential power in the developing world. -- I have a couple of concerns with this sentence after spotchecking it. Firstly the expression is quite similar to part of a sentence in the source and might be paraphrased better. Secondly as written in the article it suggests that Egypt was occupied by the British when Nasser came to power, which I don't think is quite correct is it? I gather there was British military presence and British influence, but that's not what I understand by the term "occupied". In any case I think the source gives credit to Nasser for making Egypt independent but the transition from British "occupation" seems to be mentioned in passing rather than directly credited to Nasser...
- Egypt experienced a golden age of culture during his presidency -- "golden age" is a bit peacockish, although I've no objections if it's a quote from a source and you can attribute it.
- Personal life
- His social status was still well below the wealthy Egyptian elite, and his resentment of those born into wealth and power continued to grow. -- I think this is the first time we've specifically mentioned his resentment of the elite (I recall us mentioning resentment of the British) and wonder if this should be touched on earlier in the article to help explain his motivations.
- Images/sources
- I'll rely on Nikki's image check and hope she'll be able to complete a source review as well... ;-)
- I notice in the Al-Azhar subsection that you could consolidate references, i.e. in both paragraphs two consecutive sentences have exactly the same citation. There may not be a rule against this but I think the fewer citations one can get away with, the better the text flows.
- Given my few spotchecks of sources suggested some issues, I think the article would benefit from a fuller spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Alternatively you could revisit the article yourself based on the sort of things I've identified so far in that respect.
- Structure/content
- Structure seems logical and in line with similar bios.
- Content-wise there's a lot of detail but I don't find it overwhelming and, while I don't claim to be an expert on Nasser or Egyptian history, the major facts presented in the article seem in line with the general wisdom as I understand it, and the tone appears mainly neutral except where queried above.
- You have a number of duplicate links that you can check with
this script. Some may be justified owing to the length of the article and the resultant space between links, but pls review in any case.
- Summary
- I've copyedited as I went through the article, so pls let me know if I've misinterpreted or broken anything. All in all, this is a mammoth effort that I hope will attract more comment. Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
01:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
reply
- I really appreciate the review and extra c/e. Czar and I had been discussing the length issue during the peer review and copyedit. We brought it down to 78 KB from 95 KB, but 78 is still pretty large. Once this review is finished (pass or fail), I plan to nominate it for FA in its present structure so hopefully size won't be a make or break issue in that process. I'm in my fall semester now and have been bogged down in study and testing (that's why I've been delayed in my replies) so I might not be able to make significant changes to the article anytime soon if something like creating a "Presidency of Gamal Abdel Nasser" article would be required. As for the points you brought up above, I think I've addressed them, but someone might have to do the spotcheck if necessary. --
Al Ameer (
talk)
02:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, spotchecks are carried out by reviewers, my suggestion was that you yourself might want to revisit anything that was in the back of your mind from editing that could perhaps use some further paraphrasing or tweaking for accuracy. However there's no particular need for that if a reviewer carries out a decent spotcheck; I may not be able to myself but I might ask around as it would be good to get out of the way before you look at FAC. Anyway, thanks for making those changes; I enjoyed reading the article and hope that with further comment it will pass this review and give you a good lead-in for FAC.
Pending source review and spotcheck I'm giving it my provisional support. Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
13:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
reply
Source spotcheck -- Sorry for the delay, I've ended up doing a further spotcheck myself as my preferred candidate for the task was unavailable; note that I've had to restrict myself to publications available on preview at GoogleBooks...
- FN40: The WP article states Nasser had also felt bitter that his brigade had not been relieved despite the resilience it displayed. -- I'm sure this is correct but the source doesn't express it quite this way, rather it states that the defenders of Falluja were embittered, and they gathered under Nasser's leadership to instigate the coup of '52.
- FN58: Okay.
- FN59: Okay.
- FN222: Okay.
- FN236c: The WP article states Observers noted that the declaration signaled an important shift from political repression to liberalization, although its promises would largely go unfulfilled. The source states The March 1968 declaration signaled a second major shift under Nasser from repression to liberalization, although its most basic promises, like those of March 1954, went unfulfilled. -- First of all, if you say "observers noted" then I'd assume you meant contemporary commentators, reporters, public figures, etc. In fact this is the observation of an author in 2007. Secondly, the phrasing in the source and the WP article are a bit too close for comfort as far as I'm concerned. I'd suggest either recasting the sentence entirely or else quoting/attributing the source passage. Thirdly, isn't the source, Rethinking Nasserism, co-edited by Onn Winckler?
- FN274c: Okay.
- FN293a: Can't see any mention of the New Wafd Party or Jamal Badawi on the cited page.
My conclusion from the above and from a few instances during my general review when accuracy or paraphrasing of sources seemed in question is that, while I haven't discovered major problems, there are enough niggles that I think you need to walk through the article and double-check sourcing/paraphrasing yourself before submitting for FAC. I realise this a daunting task in such a large article, and you may not have added and sourced all the material, but when you nominate an article for ACR or FAC you're taking responsibility for its prose, structure, coverage, image licensing and referencing, and any problems associated with them. By the way, while I was spotchecking, I noticed a few more style points:
- On 25 January 1952, a confrontation between British forces and police at Ismailia resulted in the deaths of forty Egyptian policemen, provoking riots in Cairo the next day which left 76 people dead. -- pls go through the article and ensure consistent representation of two-digit (or larger) numbers.
- loosely-structured -- generally, double-barrelled adjectives where the first word ends in "ly" are not hyphenated, again pls check throughout.
Subject to the above style points being addressed, I'm still happy with the article as far as prose, structure, coverage, and supporting materials go but I can't help feeling that a more comprehensive spotcheck, which I can't supply, would reveal more things that need finetuning. I reiterate that this article is a great undertaking and, I think, deserving ultimately of A-Class and FA status, but I just can't support it all the way at this stage. Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
13:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Ian. Thank you for being so diligent with this review. I agree that these points need to be addressed prior to the article being promoted.
Anotherclown (
talk)
10:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Given the issues raised and the length of time it will likely take to work through I have now requested the review be closed with no consensus to promote at this stage - here
[1]. This article is very good in my opinion but still needs some work to ensure it is complete. Of course there is nothing stopping the article from being re-nominated once the checks have been completed and I would be more than happy to review it again at this time.
Anotherclown (
talk)
08:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
reply
Comments. Feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (
push to talk)
- "one of the towering political figures of modern Middle Eastern history and politics in the 20th century.": How about "one of the towering Middle Eastern political figures of the 20th century" or "one of the towering political figures of the 20th century"? I'm not sure what "modern" means here.
- "only one of two honorable Arab military actions": Not sure what this is saying.
- "The apparent disconnect between the population and the palace": "disconnect" is informal in this context, and I'm not sure what it means here.
- "began a struggle to reduce its influence over his activities": Not sure what this is saying ... you don't need a political struggle to change your own activities. What was the nature of the influence that he was trying to change?
- This is a very long article, and I'm sorry I don't have time to finish it. I copyedited down to Revolution. - Dank (
push to talk)
02:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Hey Dank, I hope I addressed your concerns. The last one about the Brotherhood will require more research since the source I use is a bit vague with the early links between Nasser and the Brotherhood. I've been busy with classes lately, but will look into other sources as soon as possible. --
Al Ameer (
talk)
01:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Comments
Support
- Technical review:
- A couple of dab links
[2]:
- Mukhabarat
- Nasser (disambiguation)
- External links check reveals one dead link
[3]:
- Mass Mediations: New Approaches to Popular Culture in the Middle East and Beyond (info) [uark.edu]
- Some of the images lack
Alt Text so you might consider adding it for consistency
[4] (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
- The Citation Check Tool reveals a couple of minor issues with reference consolidation:
- {{Harvnb|Dawisha|2009|p=191}} (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Dawisha191 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Aburish310 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Images review has been completed above.
- The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing
[5] (no action req'd).
- A large number of duplicate links per
WP:REPEATLINK:
- Royal Military Academy
- 1936 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty
- Egyptian_Revolution_of_1952
- Alexandria
- Umm Kulthum
- Helwan
- Soviet Union
- Aswan Dam
- Saudi royal family
- Khaled Mohieddin
- Algeria
- Palestinian Fedayeen
- Sayyed Qutb
- Straits of Tiran
- Zakaria Mohieddin
- Khartoum
- Arab Socialist Union
- Hussein el-Shafei
- Beirut
- Helwan
- Tawfiq al-Hakim
- Tunisia
- Sudan
- Abdullah al-Sallal
- North Yemen
- Muammar Gaddafi
- arteriosclerosis
- A few of the references are lacking places of publishing.
- Will read over this today and provide a full review afterwards.
Anotherclown (
talk)
00:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Article review:
- "Nasser received a cephalic graze wound from a policeman's bullet...", might be more accessibly worded as "Nasser received a graze to the head from a policeman's bullet..." or something like that.
- This seems awkward: "Nasser's political activity grew more dominant throughout his school years, such that he only attended 45 days of classes during his last year of secondary school." Perhaps consider something like: "Nasser's involvement in political activity increased throughout his school years, such that he only attended 45 days of classes during his last year of secondary school..."
- I am confused by what these sentences mean: " He strongly objected to the 1936 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, which stipulated the continued presence of British military bases in the country and was backed almost unanimously by Egypt's political forces.[8] Consequently, political unrest in Egypt declined significantly and Nasser resumed his studies at al-Nahda,[16] where he received his leaving certificate later that year." Why did political unrest decline if the opposition to the treaty was so widespread?
- "In 1937, Nasser applied to the Royal Military Academy for army officer training..." is his motivation for joining the army known?
- Suggest reordering this sentence: "After graduating from the academy in July 1938,[8] he was posted to the town of Mankabad near his native Beni Mur, and was commissioned a second lieutenant in the infantry." He would have been commissioned on graduating, then posted, not the other way around. Consider instead: "After graduating from the academy in July 1938, he was commissioned a second lieutenant in the infantry, and posted to the town of Mankabad near his native Beni Mur."
- Wording seems a little awkward here: "...Nasser stayed in touch with the group's members primarily through Amer, who continued to discover interested officers...", consider instead: "Nasser stayed in touch with the group's members primarily through Amer, who continued to seek out interested officers..." or something like that.
- "...but was ultimately refused entry to the AHC's forces by the Egyptian government for unclear reasons...." → "...but was ultimately refused entry to the AHC's forces by the Egyptian government for reasons that were unclear...."
- "He sent emissaries to forge an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood in October 1948...", wikilink Muslim Brotherhood here (it is previously linked only in the lead).
- "...concluded that the agenda of the Brotherhood was not compatible with his nationalism...." do we know why?
- Repetitive language here: "By then, the organization had expanded to around ninety members; according to one member..." ("member" used twice in the same sentence), perhaps reword?
- "On 25 January 1952, a confrontation between British forces and the police of Ismailia killed forty Egyptian policemen..." consider instead: "On 25 January 1952, a confrontation between British forces and police at Ismailia resulted in the deaths of forty Egyptian policemen..."
- "...made songs praising Nasser's nationalism..." consider instead: "...wrote songs praising Nasser's nationalism."
- Colourful prose here: "Nasser's Bandung efforts devotedly sought a proclamation for the avoidance of international defense alliances..." consider something like: "At Bandung Nasser's sought a proclamation for the avoidance of international defense alliances..."
- typo here I think: "...his promotion of pan-Arabism was viewed as a threat pro-Western states in the region...", consider "... his promotion of pan-Arabism was viewed as a threat to pro-Western states in the region..."
- "...In September, Turkish troops massed along their Syrian border..." → "...In September, Turkish troops massed along the Syrian border..."
- missing word here I think: "...and allowed broadcast of anti-colonial propaganda from Cairo...", consider instead "...and allowed the broadcast of anti-colonial propaganda from Cairo..."
- some redundancy here: "...Amer's increasing autonomy forced Nasser, who had already had diabetes..." → "...Amer's increasing autonomy forced Nasser, who already had diabetes..."
- Repetitive language: "Nasser refused the call[208][209] upon determination that the air force lacked pilots and Amer's handpicked officers lacked competence." (specifically "lacked" twice) Consider instead: "Nasser refused the call upon determination that the air force lacked pilots and Amer's handpicked officers were incompetent."
- "...causing a large exodus of Egyptians from that area....", suggest more simply: "...causing an exodus of Egyptians from that area."
- I have no expertise in this area, so will confine my cmts mostly to prose. That said I get the feeling that the article covers the topic fairly well (other the few areas above where I have asked for some clarification) and I couldn't see any obvious issues with bias / balance etc.
- The article covers a lot of ground and is quite large, but it seems to do so using summary style and it didn't seem to be excessive.
- Given the nature of the subject (a major political figure) and the events he was involved in I think the article does a fairly good job of presenting these appropriately and in good faith.
- Only possible issue I see is that the criticism section could possibly be expanded (although don't really know of major criticism that is missing given my unfamiliarity with the subject). Happy to accept it as is if this is reflective of the literature though.
- This is an important article and I am impressed with what you have produced so far. Unfortunately I have only been able to go through it fairly quickly (working tonight and dealing with a few issues by phone), and I am not really familiar with the subject. Happy to discuss any issues that you disagree with. Will have another look once you have responded to my cmts.
- All the best with the project.
Anotherclown (
talk)
11:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks for the review and the suggestions. I believe I've fixed/addressed the points you brought up above. Concerning the technical review, the first disambiguation link is just a hatnote, but I think it's necessary to keep as long as "
Nasser" redirects to the article. The one about "
mukhabarat" is trickier and I'm thinking about just removing the sentence altogether. When it's used in this instance it's not describing a particular Egyptian intelligence agency, but the state of domestic espionage in general. For the prose review, I took all of your suggestions. As for criticism, it was a bit longer before, but as with many sections in the article, I reduced it per the peer review/copyedit that was undertaken prior to this A-class nomination. Everything that was rid of was redundant though. I'm sure there's more criticism of Nasser out there, but I believe the major criticisms directly related to him have been addressed. --
Al Ameer (
talk)
01:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
reply
- P.S. Actually, I forgot to add his motivation for entering the military academy. Will add it as soon as I can find it. --
Al Ameer (
talk)
03:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Those changes are looking good so far. Pls ping me if you can find any info on his reason for joining the Army and once you have finished adding the locations to the references and I'll have a final look. Cheers.
Anotherclown (
talk)
10:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
reply
That looks fine. I added the missing publication locations. One last issue: there is some inconsistency in the presentation of ISBNs. Some use hyphens and others do not. Can this be rectified?
Anotherclown (
talk)
10:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Support
Comments: G'day, I had a quick look and it looks quite impressive. I have a couple of minor suggestions:
- please check for consistency of English variation. I found some US and some British spelling, for instance: "kilometre" (British), but "defense" (US);
- repetition: "After briefly returning from Sudan, Nasser returned in September 1942.." (returning and returned);
- "within the Egyptian Armed Forces's..." --> "within the Egyptian Armed Force's";
- "Nationalization of Suez Canal" --> "Nationalization of the Suez Canal";
- "Nasser's personal hobbies included photography, chess, magazines in Arabic, English, and French, American films, and classical music" --> "Nasser's personal hobbies included photography, playing chess, reading magazines in Arabic, English, and French, American films, and listening to classical music"?
- If you wouldn't mind looking into these points, I will come back try to come back and have a more thorough look a little later. Regards,
AustralianRupert (
talk)
11:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks for the pointing those out. I fixed them, but for the American/British spellings, I couldn't find any other inconsistent words from a scan of the article or through searching for specific common words like "centre" or "organise". To be clear, the spelling I've used in the article is American. --
Al Ameer (
talk)
02:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
reply
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not promoted (no supports and quite a few outstanding reviewer comments after more than 28 days)
Peacemaker67 (
send... over)
12:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator(s):
TheVirginiaHistorian (
talk)
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...I’ve taken it from a stub describing an overnight bombardment to a narrative including the defensive preparation under R.E.Lee personal direction, Union approaches, amphibious operation and siege, and counter operations by Confederate fire and naval sorties. The Union victory made masonry forts obsolete. Article has a fair amount of page views now, including what looks to be quarterly seminar use?
TheVirginiaHistorian (
talk)
09:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
reply
Comments: G'day. I'm not sure if you've been involved with Milhist ACR before or not; if not, welcome. I can see you've put in a lot of effort on this one, which is great to see. I have listed a few issues below, but there are more than just these. If you can fix these, and then look for similar issues, I will be happy to take another look. I also think it might be a good idea to ask someone over at the
WP:GOCE to perform a copy edit on the article. Anyway, these are my comments/suggestions:
AustralianRupert (
talk)
11:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
reply
- really, really helpful. please read through my nested responses.
TheVirginiaHistorian (
talk)
07:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
reply
- in the lead, "Hilton Head Island SC" --> please spell out "SC" for non US readers;
AustralianRupert (
talk)
11:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
reply
- in the lead, "The Fort commanded" --> "The fort commanded";
- caption: "Effect of Union's innovative Parrott Rifle cannon and percussion shells". This is not a sentence.
- the Background section appears to have a few paragraphs that are uncited. Can you please add references to the end of the first three paragraphs?
- "A young LT Robert E. Lee" --> its probably best to spell out "LT" for lay readers;
- please add a citation to this: "On November 5, General Robert E. Lee assumed command of the newly created "Department of South Carolina, Georgia and Florida"."
- watch out for overlink. I removed a few, but the duplicate link checker tool reports more such as: Robert E. Lee; Fort James Jackson; gunboat; CSS Savannah (gunboat); Thomas W. Sherman; Josiah Tattnall; Parrott Rifle;
- For editorial direction, max of two if they are separated by at least two section headings?
- "30-Pounder" --> "30-pounder";
- caption: "30-pdr Parrott Rifle battery penetrated walls in three places at SE corner (center)" (this sentence appears to be missing something);
- will comply: in other projects sentence fragments, noun clauses are permitted. mea culpa, I'm new.
- the first two paragraphs of the Siege section (before Approaches) should have citations at the end of the paragraphs, as some of the information appears uncited;
- this needs a citation: "Under periodic harassing bombardment throughout the hours of darkness, Olmstead's garrison put several guns back into service."
- this needs a citation: "Given shortages in marine engines, the Navy built floating battery CSS Georgia (1863). The new railroad allowed timely movement of troops and supplies to besieged Charleston throughout 1861–1864."
- This is from two sources, I'll either sort it out or delete it what I cannot directly cite.
- the paragraph ending: "Thomas Sherman was transferred to the western theater and replaced by General David Hunter" needs a citation;
- the paragraph starting "Operationally, General Robert E. Lee headquartered..." needs a citation;
- this needs a citation: "The fort had been provisioned on January 28 with a six-month supply of food."
- the Access today section is completely uncited;
- This is a links problem, I will fix it, giving open sources to the parks and foundations web page links.
- quotations should be attributed in text. For instance here: "“It looks now as if he would take the Savannah River” and “If he attempts to advance by batteries on the marshes or islands, he must be driven back, if possible.” Scouts were ordered out “so as to discover his first lodgment, when they can be broken up." Who said this and why is it important?
- I am afraid I got too literary. Text reads On Lee’s transfer to Richmond, he [Lee] detailed urgent defense construction, then he [Lee] called on Lawton’s “earnest and close attention” to the Federal’s probable approach to the city. “It looks now as if he would take the Savannah River” [wrote Lee to Lawton as referenced in the Record]. I'll work on it. yes, I'm new. This is important because Lee anticipated exactly what the Federal advance would be; the failure was not a lack of foresight on the Confederate commanders' part, but failure came due to lack of Confederate resources military and naval, and the national policy dictated out of Richmond (Jefferson Davis) to defend against offensives against Richmond first.
- "op cit": I suggest not using this in your referencing, as the nature of Wikipedia means that if the original citation is removed, it will no longer make sense to the reader;
- Will do. thanks. This was an early effort at becoming a writer on wikipedia.
- something seems wrong/broken with Reference # 50 "[[date=August 2013|"
- Query: I've read style calls for open sourcing so that when links are broken by the page, readers can access the published document. I can try to find all current links, but --- is it better to leave links out for an A rating? --- I thought working links were the best Wikipedia help to a student, giving online reliable sources that might not be reflected in the possibly vandalized textual narrative at their viewing -- but verifiable by their own independent search and reading.
- something seems wrong/broken with Reference # 53 "name=“FPHH”
- something seems wrong/broken with Reference # 55 ">CSS Georgia"
- Reference 69, the url should be embedded like the other links
- in the Further reading section, why are some of the words in bold, for instance "Navies", "Armies" and "Atlas"?
- I hoped to allow for clarification of sources. The wikipedia civil war pages seem not so unbalanced North v. South, but Armies v. Navies, biased to the Army sources. Another issue is relying on scholars who relied on newspapers, one reason for misrepresenting Olmstead's competence and valor in the literature, when military accounts of his service, both Union and Confederate sources, show him to be a good officer.
- "File:RifledGunsatFortPulaski1862.jpg": on the image description page, it lists "Berean Hunter" as the author of this image. I'm not sure that this is correct, "Berean Hunter" was the uploader, but the author would have been the person who actually took the photograph in 1862. If the author is unknown, please simply change "Author Berean Hunter" to "Author Unknown" or "Author Not stated at source"
- I agree if BH did not take the photo. Not sure how to fix all the image description page errors I find. The Blood Stained Banner is described as the Confederate flag "since 1865" when Jefferson Davis in his "Short History of the CSA" said the historical Confederacy "disappeared" in 1865. Does this commons image problem bear on the article A rating? Yes, I am new, your assistance is already appreciated. Thanks in advance.
TheVirginiaHistorian (
talk)
07:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
reply
- "File:Samuel francis dupont photo.gif": the image description page lists the source as "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samuel_francis_dupont_photo.gif" but this is problematic because that is a self reference. This source should be replaced with the original source (for instance the book it came from). Additionally the file requires a US licence as well;
- Sorry, I do not understand -- what is the Samuel francis dupont photo? Illustration is clearly a weakness I need to strengthen.
- "File:USS Unadill lithograph.jpg": needs a US licence as well;
- Is the image not from a public or copyright-lapsed source in wikicommons?
- the issue was that the image was currently not correctly licenced on Wikicommons. It was using a "pd-art" template, but needed to also demonstrate why that applied. I have changed this, with this edit:
[10] (but I'm not an expert, so I hope I got it right);
AustralianRupert (
talk)
10:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
reply
- "File:FortPulaskiMap.jpg": needs a US licence as well;
- Is the image not from a public or copyright-lapsed source in wikicommons?
- this is not a sentence: "Though omitting primary and secondary sources (scan is truncated), generally meets requirements of the US Department of Education “Teaching American History” grant and teacher’s National Board Certification."
- per
WP:LAYOUT, I think the Further reading section should be above the External links section.
AustralianRupert (
talk)
11:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Will comply.
- really, really helpful. please read through my nested responses.
TheVirginiaHistorian (
talk)
07:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
reply
- G'day, again, I've made a few changes to cover some of my points above. Are you in a position to cover off on the others? If you are able to address these concerns, it might encourage other reviewers to take a look at the article. This is important, as you need at least three editors to support your article if it is going to be promoted to A class, otherwise the review will probably be closed as unsuccessful. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Regards,
AustralianRupert (
talk)
05:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks again for your collaboration. I have been distracted from WP and away for a several days. I appreciate your patience. Hope to get to a couple items this week. If the time fuse runs out for this cycle of review, I still have material and direction to purposefully work on article improvement, thanks to your assistance.
TheVirginiaHistorian (
talk)
11:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
reply
Comments - Dank (
push to talk)
- "army-navy defense": per the logic at
WP:SLASH, it would probably be better to say "army and navy" or whatever.
- "it was commercially": It ...
- "Southern secessionists threatened civil war, were their opponent to be elected President.": Southern secessionists were threatening civil war. [I don't recommend that form of the subjunctive here, and readers will understand that no one planned to secede if they won.]
- "The policy was continued until April 12, 1861, at Fort Sumter, South Carolina, just north along the Atlantic Coast from Fort Pulaski.": Say something about what happened at Fort Sumter; it's not very clear to say that a policy stopped in a certain place.
- "the commander, Department of Georgia, General Alexander Robert Lawton": Many American readers won't understand "commander, Department of Georgia" as the name of an office. If you want to keep it anyway, then capitalize the first word, but I recommend "the commander of the Department of Georgia".
- See
MOS:QUOTEMARKS. Use straight quotes (") rather than curly quotes (because being able to search for things is important in an online encyclopedia, and readers aren't going to be searching for curly quotes). Also, you use quotemarks for too many different purposes; readers won't in general know what you mean by them. Search for them throughout, and see if it's possible to make the meaning plain without them. - Dank (
push to talk)
17:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
reply
Comments –
Cdtew (
talk)
Overall, this looks like a very thorough article; given my relatively high familiarity with the subject, I will try to focus on content questions and less on style. I may have some style points, though, so bear with me:
- "The Battle of Fort Pulaski was fought April 10–11, 1862, during the American Civil War" - I think it's crucial to give your reader an idea of where the battle was fought in the first 1-2 sentences of the lede. For instance, the Battle of Gettysburg starts with "The Battle of Gettysburg...was fought July 1–3, 1863, in and around the town of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania between Union and Confederate forces during the American Civil War." This sentence I've placed here is (in my opinion) a great place to put it. For instance, "The Battle of Fort Pulaski was a en engagement during the American Civil War fought April 10-11, 1862 on the Georgia coast." or something to that effect. You give a good geographic description later in the lede, i just like to see it laid out explicitly in the beginning.
- "Union forces on Tybee Island and naval operations conducted a 112-day siege" - "Union forces...and naval operations conducted" doesn't make too much sense, because naval operations aren't a unit, person, commander, ship, etc. Perhaps "Union land and naval forces conducted"?
- "Fort Pulaski was built as a "Third System" fort in the United States system of coastal defense on land ceded to the United States by the State of Georgia" - this is a very dense sentence, and expresses several ideas that all should get a part of the spotlight, namely: (a) There was a system of coastal defense in the U.S., (b) that system had several "generations" of structures (first, second, third system); (c) Fort Pulaski belonged to the third system, which means (in a nutshell), and (d) the State of Georgia gave the land to the U.S. I would suggest breaking this up and explaining these points very quickly; sure, a reader could click on "Third System" to find out what it means, but if you give a quick explanation it will make the section more readable, so that a lay reader doesn't have to interrupt his/her reading to find out what the term means.
- "A British colonial fort was torn down in the American Revolution" -- Do you have the name of that fort? I'm at work, so I don't have my reference on Colonial forts at hand.
- "A young Lieutenant Robert E. Lee served as an engineer during the construction of the fort, at which time he resided in Savannah, Georgia." - You may want to clarify, again, for the uninformed, that at the time Lee was an officer in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
- "In the campaigns for national elections in 1860" - I would consider wikilinking a phrase in this sentence to either the
United States presidential election, 1860 or
Origins of the American Civil War#Elections of 1860 articles for clarity.
- " volunteer militia" - my first question is, naturally, who were these militiamen? Who was their commander? Etc.
- "with Confederate forces" - This terminology is slightly ahistorical, or at least muddled. The Confederate Army wasn't provisionally established until February 1861, so if you're talking about work done in January 1861, I assume you're talking about Georgia state militia. If you're talking about something later, break this sentence apart and make it clear the time period you're talking about.
- "General Robert E. Lee assumed command of the newly created "Department of South Carolina, Georgia and Florida" - this paragraph needs a cite.
- "First Georgia Regulars had been assigned to Tybee Island" - Is this referring to
1st Georgia Infantry? Or is it referring to another unit? You may want to double-check the unit name in sources, because that could be confusing.
- "Olmstead’s 'First Volunteer Regiment of Georgia'" - Since this is his first mention in the text, you may want to say who Olmstead was.
- "was considered invincible" - by whom? The confederates may have thought so, but presumably the Union did not.
- "Fort garrison duty with untrained troops made up for lost time" - this needs some clarification to make sense. What about it made up for lost time? Garrison duty encompasses everything from building defenses to sitting around playing cards; I presume you mean the former - ie: improvement of the defenses, but if so, clarify that in this sentence.
- "heavy labor such as mounting heavy guns" - overuse of heavy here.
- "Troops were tested on gunnery skills, then dinner at one. The rotating fatigue parties returned to work Officers reviewed infantry tactics, then instructed the men for an hour. Fatigue parties had “recall” at six. Then at “Dress Parade” retreat, the garrison performed infantry drill including combat formation evolutions. Supper followed and afterwards an hour’s recitation of army regulations, taps at nine" - This is laid out too much like a list. Add more verbs, pronouns, and narrative to this to make it more readable.
- The paragraph ending " He knew the lay of the land and the tides of the sea there" needs citation.
- "lodgment" - you might want to clarify. Was this a beachhead based on a coastal assault? A bridgehead? or something else?
- "When Federal forces first made a lodgment" - this pops up sort of by surprise. What units made the lodgment? When was it made? How? What, if anything, did the Confederates do to try and prevent it?
- "Union monitors" - slightly irrelevant, but I only recall one Monitor-class ship being involved in Virginia in 1862 (that being the eponymous ship of that class).
- "Union moves to establish batteries above the Fort" - having been to the area, I don't recall much in the way of "high ground", so if you mean "upriver" from the fort, you might want to say so. Or, if there was an elevation differential, say that instead.
- "In January, following Tattnall’s three-gunboat attack on seven Federal gunboats on the river" - you may want to expand on this engagement, and also clarify its the Savannah River you're talking about.
- "On Lee’s transfer to Richmond" - Clarify exactly when Lee was transferred to be Davis' military advisor; also, since he wasn't present for the Battle, he shouldn't be in the infobox as a commander during it.
- "Secretary of War Cameron" - explain who this is (ie:
Simon Cameron, and that he was U.S. Secretary of War
- "an experienced US Navy commander" - since he didn't hold a CSN and USN commission simultaneously, you want to indicate this was in his former life
- "Flag Officer Du Pont" - put a wikilink here, and check throughout; where someone or something is linked in a picture caption, they should still be linked in their first mention in the body of the article.
- "They withdrew overnight into Skull Creek, Georgia" - who withdrew?
- "Warsaw Sound, south of Wilmington Island, and Ossabaw Sound at Skidaway Island" - several, if not all of these have articles that can and should be linked.
- "Of the two senior military commanders leading up to the engagement, neither Union General Thomas Sherman, nor Confederate General Robert E. Lee" - Again, Lee didn't really do much during the engagement, so you may want to clarify this.
- "General Lee personally interceded" - how did he intercede? This is where the timeline of this article gets a little wonky. Up above, you talk about Lee's early March appointment to Richmond; now, below, you're going back to a time when Lee is still in Savannah (I believe). Perhaps the timeline of the body of this article should be reworked in a more linear fashion? If not, and you intend to do it conceptually, then you need to be crystal clear about when each event that you're describing happened.
- I am personally not a fan of the bullet-point list of the Aftermath section; while I don't suppose it's a requirement that things like that be done in prose-paragraph format, I just think it improves readability if it's given in narrative rather than summary form. Consider putting this into a traditional encyclopedic structure.
- The Aftermath section is probably a good place to put a comparison to other combined-arms assaults that the Union undertook in the March-May 1862 timeframe along the southern coast. Battles like the
Siege of Fort Macon and the
Battle of Forts Jackson and St. Philip would be good comparisons to this one, given that they occurred at the same time and in generally the same theater.
- I would split apart the "Access today" section, and describe how the site is laid out today, and what the National Monument includes to help visitors understand the battle (ie: walking trails, a movie, exhibits, etc.). Also, has any archaeology been done on any portion of the battlefield? If so, that might be worth mentioning too.
Regardless, this has potential to move forward, but aside from my content quibbles, the thing that concerns me the most is that you make sure the article is thoroughly-cited and that the references are good. The citation issues mentioned in the previous reviews absolutely must be addressed at this stage. Particularly, with your footnotes, here are my thoughts:
- You cite to a number of things as "op. cit.", but then I don't see an original citation - I may be missing it because it' buried in a forest of footnotes (as was the case with "Elliott"), or I can't even find it with ctrl+F, leading me to believe it was omitted (as is the case with "Victor", which only appears in "op. cit." citations).
- I want to take the time to suggest heavily that you use
Template:Sfn or another citation template to help organize your cites. As they are right now, you absolutely cannot locate certain cites without using ctrl+F, which is a little frustrating. Using an sfn template (combined with a "References" section) would allow you to continue using shortened cites, but would allow a reader to click through to find the source. See what I did at
Fort Dobbs (North Carolina) as an example of what I mean.
- Fns 2 & 4, for instance, don't let us know who the publisher of the CSS Georgia article is, or why it should be considered a reliable source. This is just one example. I would encourage you to make frequent use of templates (ie: Cite news, cite journal, cite encyclopedia) to get all the required information in each cite.
- For your book and journal cites, many of them go "author last name, author first name, title, ISBN, publisher, year, page"; other cites go "title, author name, publisher, year, ISBN, page". These really should each be identical based on the type of work they are. Using the Cite book and Cite journal templates will make this uniform.
Image review:
- All images appear to have appropriate PD tags, and most have sufficient information to support those tags.
- I like the use of image galleries, but will need to test how the formatting looks on my iPad, since I think its important to format with mobile devices in mind these days.
- Agree with AustralianRupert re: his comments on images that may not have been addressed.
- I am concerned with "File:Plan Fort Pulaski.PNG", because this appears to be a work done by another user, but the image page doesn't clarify the source from which the image creator made the image. In other words, where did the image creator get the general measurements and layout from, and what source informed the creator that, for instance, the portion in front of the sally port was called the Fleche? Or that the "moat" was referred to as a "moat" as opposed to "fosse" or "ditch"?
- "Fort plan shows outline and features, demilune" - do you mean
Ravelin?
This needs slight improvement to make it to A-class. If you can get all of this stuff taken care of (and all of Rupert and Dank's comments as well), and can organize your citations, I don't doubt this would make a good candidate for FAC after ACR. Still some work to go, but good job so far!
Cdtew (
talk)
15:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
reply
Comment
- An interesting read, although I didn't think it was quite there in ACR terms yet. It might be worth taking through Good Article review as an initial step.
- Some comments:
- "The fort's surrender strategically closed Savannah as a port" - unclear how being "strategically closed" differs from "tactically closed", or just "closed"
- "then redeployed most of its 10,000 troops." - unclear which troops these are; the forces used in the battle? All of its troops?
- "The Confederate army-navy defense blocked Federal advance" - doesn't quite parse: "the Federal advance"? "Federal advances"?
- "The new construction replaced two earlier forts on Tybee Island..." - so far you haven't mentioned Tybee Island in the main article. Where is it, etc.?
- The "Background" section is entirely unreferenced.
- "the commander, Department of Georgia, General Alexander Robert Lawton" - "Department of Georgia" feels unclear here. Was he the commander of the Department of Georgia?
- You'll need metric equivalents for the imperial lengths - you could use the convert template for this.
- "Fort garrison duty with untrained troops made up for lost time." - This construct didn't work for me.
- I'd echo the comments on the bullet points above.
- Personally, I found the number of images rather high in places - the three images for a two paragraph section, for example, seemed excessive.
Hchc2009 (
talk)
15:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
reply
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.