Talk:Siege of Saïo/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: HerodotusTheFraud (talk · contribs) 23:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this one shortly. Regards, Herodotus (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting article, and it falls in nicely with some of my recent work. With that said, I do have a number of comments:

The first sentences of the Introduction might be better worded. The second sentence seems slightly out of place, and probably needs a little more context. Perhaps it might be added as an adjunct to the first? Done
It would be good to add another paragraph to the Introduction talking about the long-term effects of the battle on the campaign as a whole.
The term 'Africa Orientale Italiana' needs a bit more explanation, I think.
The sentence "Egypt, the Suez Canal, French Somaliland and British Somaliland were also vulnerable to invasion but Comando Supremo (Italian General Staff) had planned for a war after 1942" could be better worded. You might reword it to say that 'Egypt, Suez, and Somaliland were thought to be under threat, but due to the Italian General Staff's plans for war by 1942, not 1940, Italian forces in the regions were unprepared for battle in those regions," or something to that effect. Done
What is 'Regio Esercito'? That should be explained within the passage.
You might wish to explain the difference between local and metropolitan troops.
"By 1 August, mobilisation had increased that number to 371,053 troops" Where was said mobilization occurring? Ethiopia, Italy, or both? Elaboration would be useful.
What were Italian plans for war in Ethiopia? It would complement the 'British Plans' section better if there was an Italian counterpart to it (if the information is available, of course). That said, I think the Belgians need a mention in the planning section. Being the major participants on the Allied side in the battle, I believe that it might be prudent to have them in the 'British plans' section Done
"several Milizia Volontaria per la Sicurezza Nazionale (MSVN Camicie Nere [Blackshirt]) battalions and smaller units" Smaller units of what type?
"In August 1939, Wavell ordered a plan covertly to encourage the rebellion in the western Ethiopian province of Gojjam, that the Italians had never been able to repress. In September, Colonel D. A. Sandford arrived to run the project but until the Italian declaration of war, the conspiracy was held back by the policy of appeasement." Stylistic rewording would be nice here. Done
Did the Saio area not feature in British plans?
"The Belgians had begun slowly advancing but encountered Italians at the Bortai Brook" When did this occur?
"Exhausted by their journey from the Congo and suffering from dysentery and a lack of artillery, the 1,000 Belgians and Congolese could undertake no further offensive action. The Belgian contingent made moves to contain the Italian forces around Saïo from the west, while General Alan Cunningham conducted operations in Somalia and eastern Ethiopia." I think that this could be reworded for clarity. Did the Belgians attempt to contain the Italians due to their lack of offensive capability? A little more explanation of Cunningham's role would be good as well.
How did the Belgians counter Italian tactics at Bortai Brook?
Where is the "regular front"? I think clarification would be useful.
What was responsible for the Italian misconceptions of Belgian strength?

On the whole, I believe is a good article, but I think some revisions style-wise could be used throughout. I'll have another look once you've responded to the comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HerodotusTheFraud (talk • contribs) 02:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

Made several changes but I'm off to college so more anon. Keith-264 (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HerodotusTheFraud: Just an update here. I have been working on this article. Though my progress has slowed, I'm still here! -Indy beetle (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle: No problem, I'm still keeping up with your edits. I was quite impressed with your addition of an extended "Belgian Plans" section; that was a strong addition. Just let me known when you would like me to run through your work again, and I'll be happy to try to finish up the review. Herodotus (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits were still going through June, but now things have stopped, presumably the above has been addressed. Can this be double-checked and this continued? Wizardman 14:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I think I've made all the changes which at this time I have the sufficient knowledge/available resources to make. I've done my best to address the reviewer's concerns but some things, particularly the information concerning the Italians in the background, remain unaddressed. I had not planned for these things in the article and they were added by another editor. That's not to say that they aren't helpful, but these additions have grown the scope the article into areas I don't feel comfortable explaining. If the reviewer wishes to close this nomination as a failure, I will accept that decision. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for getting back to the article. I will give the article another run through and assess. I don't think it will fail, it seems unreasonable to do so in light of the effort put in and the objective quality of the piece. Herodotus (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle: Ok, I am satisfied with the quality of the piece, and will pass it in a moment. I'm sorry this process took as long as it did, but at least it is over with! Best, Herodotus (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]