Talk:Operation Pleshet/GA1

GA Review

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

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
It would be helpful to briefly explain in the background section the opening events of the war up to Operation Phleshet, and do the same to Plan Dalet.

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Overall the article is neutral. My concern lies with the result of the battle. See comments.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

A well-written, well-referenced article. It is lacking however on details of the battle from the Egyptian point of view. Additionally extra information on the initial Egyptian offensives in the war and on Plan Dalet would be useful to readers.

As for my concerns to criteria 4: while consensus amongst sources is that the battle was an Egyptian tactical victory, the Historiography section describes the dispute revolving around whether or not the battle was an Israeli strategic victory. The infobox and the aftermath section state the battle was an Israeli strategic victory, which ignores other arguments that it wasn't. --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sherif! Actually, this article has more information from the Egyptian side than any other 1948 war-related article I have seen. It has excerpts from the memoirs of Nasser, Naguib, Kamal ash-Sharif, the Egyptian radio, etc. This is actually more Egyptian quotes than Israeli ones, which are mostly made up of Avneri and one anonymous soldier. Which Egyptian views do you feel are missing?

About the historiography: The question of whether this battle was an Israeli strategic victory is the only historiographic debate about it that I am aware of. There is nothing more to add about how it was an Egyptian tactical victory, because this is not disputed by any historian. Can you be more specific about what is missing?

Finally, thank you for the review! —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Forgot to reply to the comment about Egyptian offensives and Plan Dalet: About Egyptian offensives, you may be right, and there is probably a case for briefly recounting what the Egyptians went through before reaching the bridge. About Plan Dalet however, I don't think it's relevant at all, and have not seen a single source that made a connection between Plan Dalet and Operation Pleshet. In fact, the significance of Plan Dalet is highly overrated in some circles, and I ever have a source saying that Plan Dalet was practically limited to only one operation (Yiftach). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Operation section tells the battle exclusively from the Israeli side. But you're right, this article does have more information on the Egyptian side than similar ones.

As for the historiographic debate. When I was reading the article I learned, from the infobox and the aftermath section, that the battle was a strategic victory for the Israelis. I then discovered, at the Historiography section, that this result (Israeli strategic victory) is disputed. So to me, when the infobox and aftermath section state that the battle is a strategic victory, it sounds as if the article took to one side of the argument like it was the correct side, and disregarded the other side of the argument (which claims there was no Israeli strategic victory) as the wrong side. My point is, if you're going to mention the historiographic debate in the last section, then you might as well just point out in the "Aftermath and significance" section that whether the battle was a strategic Israeli success or not is a matter of debate, and do the same in the infobox, ie: Debated/Disputed Israeli Strategic Victory. --Sherif9282 (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Points taken. About the Egyptian views of the operation itself, I only wish I had Arab sources to read about it, and had a good enough understanding of Arabic to use that information on Wikipedia. Therefore, if you can acquire such sources and send me anything of value, it would be much appreciated.

On the other point, I changed it accordingly (infobox). There is no dispute that after June 3, the Egyptians dug in and cleared their flanks, while the Israelis began to attack more. The dispute is whether the operation was the direct cause of this. I therefore believe the new sentence is more representative of that.

About the Egyptian advance up until the bridge, I will add the information later today (hopefully). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. I'm satisfied by the change, but do the same in the aftermath section as well alright? About Arab sources... Well the 1948 war is not my area of interest, and I'm currently pre-occupied with my own GA-nomination, but I'll consider researching into this topic in the future. All else said, congratulations on a new GA under your belt. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]