Jump to content

Talk:Howard Kippenberger/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 03:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specify in the lede that he joined the Territorial Force, etc. between the wars.
This information was already there, but have rephrased slightly.
This seems awkward: rigorous training of an intensity not previously experienced. Perhaps rephrasing along the lines: "training more intense than previously experienced" or somesuch.
Done.
Delete the "had" His unit had suffered heavy casualties
Rephrased slightly
Mis should be hypenated, forex mid-October.
Done.
Delete "at the time" in Although he would eventually recover from his wound, at the time it was serious enough that he was repatriated to New Zealand
Done.
You're using way too much passive voice, forex: On appreciating the prospect of an invasion of Greece by the Germans in 1941, it was decided by the British Government to send troops to support the Greeks Try something like: "The British Government decided to send troops to Greece..." or somesuch.
Done.
How do you demolish a pass? Do you perhaps mean, the road through the pass? If so then clarify.
It was bridges and culverts in the pass; have amended to reflect this.
More passive voice: Actual battle with the German forces commenced
Rephrased.
ad hoc should be hyphenated.
Done.
The wording of this seems rather redundant: was surprised at the sight of hundreds of Fallschirmjäger (paratroopers) descending under parachutes
Not quite sure of your concern about this sentence? Being surprised or the descent under parachutes? If the latter, my preference is for this wording as it seems clear from my sources that the parachutes were a striking sight for the defenders of Crete rather than the paratroopers who made it to the ground.
Paratroopers usually descend by parachute; it just seemed redundant. Maybe something like: the skies were filled with the blossoming canopies of German paratroopers, or some such. Not real wedded to that either, so you can leave it alone if you prefer your original phrasing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly was he injured by the paratrooper?
Rephrased.
Reword this: beginning to reform into a good starting position from which an attack on the airfield could be launched Use consolidate rather than reform.
Done.
short lived should be hypenated.
Done.
More passive voice: was engaged in offensive operations towards the Sidi Azeiz area
Rephrased.
Hyphenate night time.
Done.
This is awkward: As he assessed the situation and failing to take care to avoid unduly exposing himself, he was wounded by machine gun fire.
Rephrased.
Had the dressing station been guarded by Germans or other Axis troops at some point after Kippenberger was captured? And combine it with the following sentence along the lines: "As the dressing station was guarded by Italian troops, Kippenberger and a party successfully escaped by stealing a truck..." or somesuch.
Expanded and rephrased.
When did Freyberg promote him? Presumably after escaping, but spell it out so the reader knows how much time elapsed between the two events.
Rephrased.
Where is "here" in It was only here for two months? Try something like "the Division remained in Syria for only two months before..."
Hyphenate all this: 1000 yard wide as it's all a compound adjective. And the same with short range.
Done.
Aren't 21st and 22nd Battalions attacking rather than advancing?
Done.
Who is this mysterious major general? I'd suggest getting more details from the relevant volume of the official history.
Added details.
Still more passive voice: heavy casualties incurred amongst 23rd Battalion
Rephrased with a little extra detail.
Reword into two sentences: Despite this, he still lost contact with the leading 23rd Battalion which quickly overwhelmed its opposition and advanced so quickly that it arrived at its final objective so far ahead of schedule that it believed it had only reached its first objective and so advanced even further.
Done.
Reword: 5th Brigade was relieved having loss 38% of its strength
Done.
Passive voice: He was so rundown by the date of his scheduled departure in September for Egypt, he had taken seriously ill.
Fixed.
And again: The 2nd Division then moved onto the town of Orsogna but all three assaults on the town would be repelled.
Done.
Reword A further attack mounted on 14 December, and primarily involving 5th Brigade also failed, despite armoured support.
Done.
And again: He was also beginning to become worn down with the strain of battle and the attempts on Orsogna had led to the death of a close friend. When his corps cammander, Miles Dempsey, ordered what Kippenberger regarded to be wasteful attacks on ground in front of 5th Brigade, he was not pleased and voiced his concerns twice. How does this first sentence relate? Remember to be concise.
Agreed, have removed one sentence and rephrased the other.
Passive voice: "Freberg had been made" how about "Fryberg was promoted"?
Have reworded. He wasn't promoted though, hence "was made".
Fair enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And link that sentence to the following one.
Done.
Reword: The division had moved into the lines around Cassino. The German defences were robust and strongly defended and had rebuffed several attacks mounted by United States forces.
Done.
Why was the second attack on Cassino delayed?
Clarified.
Reword and consolidate these: Near the top, he stepped on a land mine. The blast destroyed one foot entirely. He was evacuated to a medical centre, where his other foot had to be amputated.
Done.
Aren't limbs a euphemism for feet?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased.
Thank you for taking the time to review this article and particularly for pointing out the issues with my sometimes passive writing. I get pinged for this in my day job too! I have made changes in response to all but one of your comments - I was a little uncertain about one, but have provided my reasoning for the way the section of text of concern is worded. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I think that it now meets the requirements even if you decide not to change the phrasing on the Fallschirmjäger bit.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Howard_Kippenberger/GA1&oldid=525573795"