Talk:Battle of Tug Argan

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Tug Argan article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Battle of Tug Argan has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 10, 2017. (Reviewed version).

Military history: African / British / European / Italian / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	African military history task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Italian military history task force (c. 500–present)
	World War II task force

Somaliland Mid‑importance

	Somaliland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somaliland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somaliland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomalilandWikipedia:WikiProject SomalilandTemplate:WikiProject SomalilandWikiProject Somaliland
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Indy beetle (talk · contribs) 02:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

A very interesting article about a lesser-known event of WWII. A pleasure to read. Some comments:

"Italy was able to quickly secure British Somaliland, marking a rare military success for the weakest of the Axis powers during the Second World War." This statement in the lead has no sources and there is no historical analyses of that kind in the "Aftermath" section.
1. Removed, cited information used to replace it.
"Italian forces in East Africa were relatively strong in numbers, if not in quality, with twenty-nine colonial brigades[...]also possessed at least 60 medium and light tanks[...]" The numeric styles here alternate. Generally, articles stick to one method or the other once a number enters the 10s or 100s values. In this case, that would mean either changing "twenty-nine" to 29 or "60" to sixty. Whichever method is chosen should be consistent throughout the article.
1. Changed to 29, as a believe I saw was the correct form. Thanks for pointing that out.
"When planning began for possible defenses to an Italian attack, the border with Ethiopia was obviously too long and open to be defended effectively by such a small force." I see what this statement is getting at, but it should be slightly reworded to be more clear. Perhaps reword as "it became apparent that the border with Ethiopia was too long and open to be defended effectively". In short this, statement should convey the realization the British had as towards their weak border situation. One could also say that "From the onset of planning, it was clear to the British that the border with Ethiopia was too long and open to be defended effectively[...]" or something similar.
1. Good point, this has been reworded to somewhat of a meshing of your two suggestions.
"General A. R. Godwin-Austen arrived to take command of the enlarged British army." How was the British army "enlarged"? Were they bolstered by the troops that had retreated from the front?
1. This references the five battalions that Wavell authorized to send to Somaliland in December 1939. The enlargement from practically nothing to a few battalions necessitated the arrival of a higher ranking officer than Colonel Chater, who had previously commanded local forces; thus Godwin-Austen was given the command.
"it helped to put Wavell into the disfavor in which he stood for the remainder of his career." The disfavor of whom? Churchill? The army? The British public? Please clarify.
1. It was meant to be the disfavor of Churchill, and has now been fixed.
What makes "Chen, C. Peter. "Invasion of British Somaliland". WW2DB. Retrieved 2017-01-23." a reliable source?
1. Not anything, honestly. That is genuinely quite embarrassing. I have now removed all of the citations of it and replaced them with more reputable sources. Anyway, thank you very much for the thoughtful review, I appreciate your help and commentary and the time spent on it.
Ok, one last thing I forgot to mention. Could you include the casualties and losses information in the infobox into the body of the article?
1. Done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HerodotusTheFraud (talk • contribs) 19:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, looks good! I'm happy to pass it. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CE

Put through the Word splendidiser, auto edded, Anglicised spellings, checked for dupe wikilinks and dups. Keith-264 (talk) 08:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Did a spring clean of the article, improved the references, Auto-edded, checked for dupe wl, general ce. All suggestive. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Ahmed Amman<ref>"CUMAR KUJOOG". Hargeysa Cultural Center. 2016-02-18. Retrieved 2024-11-01. moved from infobox, which reflects the body of the article, including this name has to start in the body before adding to the infobox. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]