Talk:Battle of Verrières Ridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria. Please feel free to leave comments.
After the FAC director promotes the article or archives the nomination, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{ArticleHistory}} template when the FAC closes.
Good article Battle of Verrières Ridge has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Climie.ca


This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Editing

I'm sorry if this page isn't up to snuff. I'm currently doing major editing on it, and this often requires a lot of time, much of which I don't have at the moment. Check later that day if it isn't fully edited, I should have managed to correct it by then.

Climie.ca 16:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

Needs more citations! :-) Kirill Lokshin 16:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pictures

Some of you may be wondering why there are no images on this article. To put it simply, it is unlikely that any photographers went into the Battle of Verrierres Ridge, since the casualties were so high. Therefore, I have been unable to find any real images associated with the battle. I'm thinking of creating my own map on google-earth to illustrate the attack plan. I'm also checking The Military Museums archives within the next few days. If anyone manages to find any relevant images associated with this battle, that would be great.!!

Cam 18:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Cam (and others) some stuff to check for info:
  1. This book.
  2. This book.
  3. This NFB film.
  4. This thesis.
  5. Part 3 of this video series.
  6. And there's a pretty good map here.
Don't know if any of that helps. I'll look around for some pics. (Oh, and "Verrières is apparently spelled with only a single "r" at the end.) Esseh 20:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add stuff to this page. Thanks a million. I'm going to be gone for the next five days, so you should probably add it yourself. Cam 22:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

THERE we go. I've added some pics of equipment and people, such as Simonds and the "Moaning Minni" Rocket Gun. That MIGHT help, I don't know.

Cam 03:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More editing, and a caution...

Climie and all. Carom has moved this to a correctly-spelled page (accent and all!) I have just gone through it and corrected the spelling of "Verrières", and de-capitalised "Ridge", where necessary. Also, I have added "citation needed" tags where I thought appropriate.
Re: the latter, I would caution Cam (and us all) aginst using a CBC/History television source as the main ref. We really risk falling into the (stereo)-typical Canadian flaw of demonising those who should be the biggest heroes (Guy Simmonds springs to mind). Remember always that Arthur Currie, arguably the most effective Allied commander of WW I (along with John Monash), was demonised in Canada in the years following that war. Balance is needed. Why did Simmonds persist? Did he really see the ULTRA messages, or were they just delivered to his HQ? There's lots of this stuff that really needs primary documents to figure out - some of which are available on-line. Was Simmonds really that callous, or was this just one of the unfortunate results of the fog of war? Just my thoughts. Esseh 06:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the advise. I've begun adding citations. The biggest problem for me is that I read so much that I often forget where EXACTLY I got the info from. Tomorrow (after I've slept until noon) I'll reread a bunch of stuff, and then begin adding more citations.

Also, a huge reason that the Black Watch was massacred on July 25 was just due to a total and absolute breakdown of any communication (the blackwatch radio was knocked out very VERY early in the battle). I'll change that quickly (as I mentioned, not right away, since I'm exhausted right now). Thanks again for the advise. Oh, and thanks to Carom for changing the link. I've just seen it spelled both ways before.

Cam 04:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cam, and welcome back. No rush on the refs, and I know what you mean about reading stuff and forgetting where you saw it. Would a photo of Simonds with Monty just before the battle help? I ran across one. I'll upload it, and post it here. Other than that, I've had no luck finding photos of the battle itself, although there obviously were combat photographers in the area at the time. Makes you wonder... Esseh 23:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, found it.It was the date that struck me. Just how much pressure was Simonds under? Anyway, use it if you like, or not. Esseh 00:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! As you may have noticed, I'm not great at wikimarkup. If possible, could you allign that to the right side and add the "info" underneath?

Thanks Cam 05:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No prob. I'll do it now. Esseh 16:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm gradually getting rid of the unsourced statements (by citing them). I'll continue to do so for the next few days.

Cam 15:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA

to whomever eventually reviews this for GA, I'm HOPING that this is good enough for the rating of GA. If it isn't, please leave notes on what needs to be done, and I'll immediately do so. Then, re-review it and determine if the necessary changes have been made. Cam 17:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Re the GA nom on the GAC page, I'm not really a GA reviewer so this is more a sort of peer review, but I've skimmed through the article and fixed a few minor niggles (mainly refs, which should come after the end of a sentence immediately following the full stop, the order of the See also/References/Links sections and the section heading levels).
I have also added citation needed templates to a few statements that should really be backed up (eg "It is unknown if he ever personally received the transcripts.", "The 25th of July marked the costliest single day for a single Canadian battalion since the Dieppe Raid of 1942.") The last paragraph ("It is widely believed, by many members of the history community, that Simonds was overly-careless with the lives of his soldiers. However, given the amount of pressure that all allied commanders, especially Bradley and Simonds, were under to break out from Normandy, it is likely that Simonds had little choice in the decision he made.") would definitely benefit from a bit of rewording; as it stands it is quoting unreferenced opinions. Could I suggest something like:
  • Some military historians, such as X and Y, have taken the view that Simonds was overly-careless with the lives of his soldiers.[citation needed] However Z argues that, given the amount of pressure that all allied commanders, especially Bradley and Simonds, were under to break out from Normandy, it is likely that Simonds had little choice in the decision he made.[citation needed]
Hope this helps. EyeSereneTALK 09:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
(addendum to the above): I have wikified the references as far as possible using the template guidelines on Wikipedia:Citing sources. I was unable to provide all the info for the templates, but I think there's enough there to keep it encyclopedic ;)
For the Bercuson book, I got the info off Amazon for a later edition; it looks like the one originally referenced is no longer in print.-That's wierd, I've got the 1995 version, I wasn't aware that it had been republished. Thanks for letting me knowCam 21:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely happy with the suitablility of the "Maple Leaf Up" source (the web page is an ex-soldier's personal account complete with opinion and commentary rather than eg an unbiased account from a respected historian) - I don't know if this can be sourced elsewhere?
Re "The Valour and the Horror": the only reference I could find to this on IMDB was a CBC (not National Film Board of Canada) production - I assume this should be the one referred to as a reference. I've gone ahead and substituted it; I hope this is OK. As for the film itself, according to comments on the IMBD site describing it as poorly researched and rather POV, it might be a bit iffy as a source (to be honest I'd be wary of films/TV documentaries as a source anyway)
One additional point I didn't notice first time around: in the infobox it has Verrier Ridge as 8 miles south of Caen, but in the intro paragraph it has 8 kilometres...?
Regards, EyeSereneTALK 10:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll get to work on those changes. By the way, the "maple leaf up" source isn't used for any information other than a casualty statistic. I decided NOT to use it for anything else BECAUSE it was biased. It did, however, have casualty figures for both the South Sasks and Essex Scottish. As for History Television, I've tried to be careful about how I worded the stuff I took from there, I'll look it over again later.

Thanks for the advice Cam 18:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, although the MLU source might be more useful as a secondary confirmation of casualty figures given somewhere more authoritative. If you do decide to use the History Television source, the citation template I used provides for specifying the time into the programme that the points you are citing were mentioned (in HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS). Going this far is entirely your choice of course - GA status is less rigourous than A-class or FA, so I'm guessing a GA reviewer would not object to this too much ;) You've done well with this interesting article so far; I find that Normandy tends to attract a lot of effort, and the post-Falaise operations can be overlooked slightly. Keep up the good work! EyeSereneTALK 19:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help. I've almost got this sucker up to GA Class status. Once I'm done the BCAD Drive, I'll do a bit more rigurous editing, reformat the references and footnotes, and then it should be ready.

[edit] Failed GA

I have failed this article as GA on a few points, although since I have tried to be complete in my criticism of the article you may get the impression that it is further off GA status than it actually is. Inf act, with a little more work I think it will probably be successful if you address a number of features and renominate it after the allowed time. The grounds I failed its nomination on are insufficient use of images, and failures on the grounds of breadth of coverage and citations. I will explain each of these in detail below:

  • The use of images is not sufficient, in my opinion - there is no either map of or photograph of the ridge, which seems to be essential in such an article, surely, and many of the images used are really only consequential or marginal to the article - eg the photo of German rocket launcher is no more relevant to this article than to any article on the battle pf normandy. Photos of more relevance here would surely be of the ridge, of any associated war graves, a portrait of the Simonds, or all of the above.I've managed to find a variety of images and diagrams within the original documents that I used for a variety of my citations, particularly the Roman Jarymowycz one. I will continue to work on this over the next little while
  • I always think you can't go too obvious in an article intro - you never know who is reading or how familiar they are with the topic. I would therefore change the intro sentence to "The Battle of Verrières Ridge was a series of engagements fought as pasrt of the Battle for Normandy during the Second World War. The main combatants were the 2nd Canadian Infantry Division and elements of the German 12th and 9th SS Panzer Divisions from July 19 - July 25, 1944" Done
  • Your citations and footnotes are interspersed, you should consider alternative notation that allows you to so separate footnote/commentary from citations of texts. I think at this moment this would only enhance my next point though...Or....I could simply cut the footnotes altogether and include the information from them in the actual article
  • Insufficient citations - the article is missing cites for several critical statements and the density of citations is lowHas undergone serious revamping
  • Poor citation format - no page numbers for many of the cites provided from published works.
  • I think the "Impact/Effect" section needs completely reworking - there is an over-emphasis on a modern-day documentary and too little on contemporary reaction to the loss. Was it reported widely at the time, did it have impact on Canadian morale, did it set back their efforts to break out of Caen etc? ie, more analysis as well as just straightforward reporting of the facts. A modern documentary on the battle can be used as a source of information but is not part of the story itself.

Good luck with taking the article forward and with eventual renomination. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

I have now reviewed this article under the six Good article criteria, and have commented in detail on each criterion below:

1 Well written FAIL PASS

The prose is generally good, and the article gives a clear description of both the action and its consequences. As a general observation the article would benefit from a light copyedit to improve flow in some places, where consecutive sentences are disjointed and transitions are rather abrupt.

Specific issues are:

  • Lead: While this does broadly cover the substance of the article (per WP:LEAD), I think it could be expanded to give a little more detail.Y Done
  • Inline citations: these need to follow end-of-sentence punctuation with no spacing (I spotted a couple of problematic cites, which I fixed, but another check through wouldn't hurt!)Y Done
I also reformatted the websites to fit the Cite Web Template, and I'm in the process of doing another check on the entire article (I'm on Verrieres & Spring at the moment). On that subject, by "end of sentence punctuation", do you mean that the cites can't go after commas within the sentence? If that's the case, I'm slightly concerned, as I've got several sentences with upwards of 3 or 4 cites within the sentence, spread out between the comma and the period. I was under the impression that it was "any punctuation such as commas, semi-colans, or periods" Cheers! Cam (Chat) 21:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Apologies again - I should have been more specific. Mid-sentence cites are OK, though to be discouraged if possible for readability reasons. I don't have any issue with yours though - it's great to see such a well-cited article ;) EyeSerenetalk 22:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Layout: the standard format is to have the last four sections in the order: See also; Notes; References; External links (see WP:LAYOUT). Y Done
  • "See also": normally, if another article is wikilinked from within the text (eg Operation Spring), it should not be repeated in the "See also" section. Because the article is fairly well-wikilinked and comprehensive, this may mean that the "See also" section ends up with no content and becomes redundant, but this is not a problem - articles don't necessarily need to have this section. Y Done
  • Headings: these should not normally contain wikilinks ("July 25 and the Black Watch") per WP:MOS#Article titles. Instead, link to the first occurrence of the phrase in the article text. Y Done
  • Quotations: while {{quotation}} looks quite nice and is permitted by WP:MOSQUOTE, because of the number of images in the article these are cluttering the appearance of the page. It may be best for the look of the article to work them into the prose of their respective sections, but I'll leave this up to you. It's not a GA-blocker ;)Y Done
  • References: We recommend using the templates on WP:CITET to format references. Some are formatted this way, but some aren't. Note that, like my previous comment, this is only a recommendation, and won't affect this GA assessment.
  • Dates: these should never use ordinal suffixes (4th, 1st etc), and should not contain commas between month and year (see WP:MOSDATE). Full dates should be formatted as on MOS:SYL, which will allow them to be displayed according to how a user has set their preferences - one example of acceptable formatting would be [[May 15]] [[2005]].Y Done
  • Images: it's great to see such a well-illustrated article (although there may have been some misperception in your previous GA review; images are not in fact required at GA, though they generally are at FA). However, related to my previous comment, the layout of the images is affecting the readability of the text in places. The Nebewerfer image is only marginally relevant - why have that, for example, and not a Tiger tank or '88' or any of the other weapons mentioned? I think perhaps cutting this image, and spreading the rest out over the article, might improve the page layout (and solve the quotes issue above if you decide to keep them as they are). However, before acting on this, see my comments under #6 below.Y Done

2 Factual accuracy PASS

The article is very well cited and researched, and from a good variety of sources. Nice job on this criterion!

Thank-you! I figure overkill on the citation was better than failing the category again. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 21:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

3 Coverage PASS

Coverage is broad (if not completely comprehensive), in line with this criterion. No issues here.

Thanks! I've got a few formatting & expansion things I plan to do after this process so that it's ready for an A-Class nomination (such as expanding the background, and discussing the actual casualties in more detail). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 21:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

4 Neutrality PASS

The article is written neutrally and contains no evidence of bias or advocacy.

That's good news, since I heard otherwise from the guy who failed it last time. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 21:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

5 Stability PASS

There is no evidence of current large-scale editing or recent edit-warring.

6 Images FAIL PASS

I have some serious concerns about the copyright status of some of the images used in the article:

  • Maps: these appear to have been scanned from books, and scanning an image does not transfer the copyright ownership to the scanner. I strongly suspect the map scans are, in fact, still copyrighted to their authors - there is not enough information on their pages to prove they have been released by the original copyright holders into the public domain (see WP:IUP). We cannot justifiably claim "fair use" on a map, because unlike a photo for example, they are easy enough to re-create (see WP:NFC). I would strongly suggest creating your own versions of the maps in an image-editing package such as Photoshop (or GIMP if you want a free alternative). We must still avoid a direct copy (because this is a "derivative work" under copyright law, and comes under the same restrictions as the original), and the source image will need to be cited. I may be able to help out here if you're not happy about creating your own maps. Alternatively, you can leave a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps (though it may not be answered quickly!).Y Done (With the proviso that the second map image will be replaced with a self-made one very shortly!) EyeSerenetalk 19:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The photographs "Verrieres-under-fire.jpg" and "Nebelwerfer-attacking.jpg" lack adequate licensing information. I suspect "Verrieres-under-fire.jpg" may suffer from the same issues as the maps, though it should be possible to find an alternative for this (and if we remove "Nebelwerfer-attacking.jpg" per my earlier comments, that solves this problem too). Y Done

As a result of the above concerns I have placed the article on hold. This gives editors up to a week to address the issues raised (although if constructive work is still underway, the hold period may be extended). I will regularly check back here to mark off those issues that have been satisfactorily resolved and to address any questions and comments you may have.

Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any feedback or believe the article is ready for a re-review. All the best, EyeSerenetalk 15:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In Rebuttal

1: On the subject of "well-written"

  • I have already scrapped the "see also" section
  • I have had three different people tell me three different layouts for the "see also, refs, notes" bit, and this has been changed by several people. Although if you want me to change it back to "notes, refs", I can easily do so.
Ah, the joys of Wikipedia! If you don't mind changing them per my comment, that would be great. There is only one recommended format for these (see WP:LAY#Standard appendices and descriptions) - if you check other MilHist GAs, you'll find most of them follow this format. However, other than the strong preference for external links to be last, like many other things it is only a guideline. If you have good reasons for ordering them differently, I won't argue ;) EyeSerenetalk 10:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I have already shifted them back to the format you suggested. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 21:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have also already fixed the wikilinks bit.
  • I've noticed that the major quotation in the July 25th section tends to cause too much clumping. I have already removed it.
  • The cite format that you used to wikify the refs during your peer-review I find only works if you aren't citing page numbers. I was told, during the failed GA, that I needed to include page numbers, and I found that the template didn't allow me to do so in an efficient manner.
Apologies - I should have been clearer. I was referring to the references in the "References" section, not the inline cites. As you've changed to using Harvard-style referencing (which I agree is better), your inline cites could be formatted using {{harvnb}} (surrounded by ref tags per usual). As I said above though, the article is well referenced, and this is just a 'nice to have', not a GA stumbling block. It won't fail if this isn't addressed ;) One thing I did notice though was the presence of a couple of web-cites in your Footnotes. These really should use {{citeweb}}, or at least have the retrieval dates in there somewhere. EyeSerenetalk 10:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm in the process of expanding the lead, so I'll address that as quickly as possible.

2: On the subject of "maps":

  • The Verrieres under fire, although originally scanned from the Roman Jarymowycz "counterattacks", I found another version of it on the Canadian Archives Site. Would it work if I simply changed the information to reflect the newer "version" of it that I found in the archives?
As long as it's the same photo, that should be fine. If the version in the archives is better quality, it may even be a good idea to upload that instead. EyeSerenetalk 10:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • As you said, images aren't mandatory. However, I find that it helps to have them, as that misconception, I've found, is common among some of the newer GA reviewers. I will have to check the copyright on the Roman Jarymowycz article (the counterattacks one) in order to assess whether I should keep them or scrap them entirely. If I have the time, I'll try to recreate a version of the map on my laptop, then re-upload them.
  • However, if I don't have the time to do so, and I discover that the copyright doesn't allow me to use it, would it hurt the GA nomination if I got rid of the maps altogether? If I feel the need to keep a recreated version, but lack the time to do so, I'll let you know. (if you could help with that that'd be great!)
Don't worry too much about time - as long as there's constructive work in progress, I won't fail the article. I think one has to apply common sense with GA holds, and as you mentioned we are working across an 8-hour time difference! If you feel under pressure, getting rid of the maps would be one solution, although it would be a shame as they do add a lot to the article. Doing that won't affect this assessment though. And yes, just drop me a note if you need a hand. EyeSerenetalk 10:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. I'm glad to see that the issues needing to be addressed are relatively easy to solve (at least it's nothing major like Criterion 2, 3, or 4, as it was last time). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I just checked the copyright for Canadian Archival Images. All Images in the National Archives of Canada (including Verrieres Under Fire & the Nebelwerfer) taken before 1949 are considered to be Public Domain. There's that one taken care of, and now I just need to determine the maps and I should be fine. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
That's great! EyeSerenetalk 10:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further reviewer comments

You're doing a great job on this so far! To help out, I've swept the article for MoS issues, and conducted a light copyedit as I was going. There's now a few redlinks - that's fine for GA, and hopefully they'll eventually turn blue as the articles are created. If you want to remove them though, no problem ;)

I've also left a few comments in the markup on various things (eg there's an incomplete sentence in Verrières and Operation Spring). I moved a few cites where I felt they interfered with the readability of the text - as we discussed above, mid-sentence cites are not prohibited, but they can have this effect sometimes. It's accepted that the order of end-of-sentence cites (where there's more than one) reflect the order of the assertions made in that sentence, so this is pretty standard practice.

A couple of points for you to check:

  • I'm not sure whether or not you use "armor" or "armour" in Canada. Both styles were present, so I changed these to "armour" for consistency. The article deals with a largely Canadian subject though, so should follow Canadian spelling. You may need to change them back?
  • You might like to check the spelling of "Verrières" in the article to make sure it's consistent (spelt as in my quotes). I caught some, but there may be more.

All the best, and keep up the good work! EyeSerenetalk 10:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn, that's a GOOD copyedit. Thanks for that. I think the prose of the entire article significantly benefited from your improvements (it almost seems like you do this GA & Copyedit thing lots. Oh, wait, that's because you do ;).
  • Anyways, I've been going back through the article, and I've found a few more naming conventions of Verrières that I missed, which is odd, because I did a lot of the naming convention copyediting before you reviewed this. Still, there's a few that are always missed.
  • I'm now in the process of changing the cite template to match the ones that are formatted using the correct template.

Issues on the images shall be resolved after Monday, as I have virtually nothing happening for the rest of the week after then, so I'll have time to recreate at least one of the maps on Tuesday & Wednesday. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 01:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You're very kind, but I really didn't do that much! I think the maps are the last remaining major issue, so once that's sorted (pending a final check-through), we'll be there. All the best, EyeSerenetalk 11:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

Ok, I managed to use that awesome GIMP photo-converter & editor that you recommended to modify, tweak, & redo the Geography of Verrieres. I know. It won't be on the Featured Picture List. But still, better than nothing. I shall have the Operation Spring one by tomorrow at 10:00PM (North American Mountain Time, mind you). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good - nice to see a splash of colour! I should also have mentioned Inkscape (another open-source package), which is actually better for doing some map-type graphics like icons and labels (and can save files in svg format, which GIMP can't). We're making progress! EyeSerenetalk 14:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I've gotten a bit busy with some other wikipedia projects (Notably Operation Totalize & Second Battle of Passchendale. I've also decided that my map-editing skills are abysmal. If you have any time (which I understand if you don't) could you take a crack at the other one? I appreciate all of your help in this GA Review Process. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 06:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine. I'll have a fair amount of spare time coming up next week, though restricted internet access, so it'll give me something to do ;) EyeSerenetalk 07:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I think we should be good after that. In the meantime, I'm going to continue to expand the lead a bit. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA pass

Following my earlier review, and with all issues now addressed (save the final map which will be uploaded shortly!), I am satisfied that this article meets the good article criteria and have passed it as a good article. It has been listed as such at WP:GA, and the various templates above have been updated to reflect this pass.

Congratulations, and well done! EyeSerenetalk 19:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you!! You have no idea how happy I am that this is finally GA. This is almost 13 months in the making. Thanks for all your help with the assessments! Cheers! Cam (Chat) 06:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome, and I'm glad your hard work has paid off! FA next...? ;) EyeSerenetalk 21:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm going for A-Class first, then heading for the Big-FA. I might try and recruit a few of you guys from "The Team" once I've got it up to A for a few final assistances. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties

I'm sure it's just stupid oversight on my part, but this suggests ~300 casualties, yet we say 2600...that's a hell of a discrepency, what am I missing? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 22:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Here's where the discrepancy comes from (and you're right, that is a big discrepancy). Firstly, those are the "killed" statistics for Operation Atlantic, whereas the total casualty rate for that operation was 1100-1350, keeping in mind that a majority of the casualties were those who were wounded. If we add the frequently used figure of 1,500 casualties (500 killed, 1000 wounded or captured) for Operation Spring, then that adds up to somewhere between 2,600 and 2,900. I've got plans to add a section on casualties after the GA review is done, so as to clear up that confusion. Don't worry, it's not a stupid oversight, it's a legit concern. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
When it comes to casualty statistics, everyone's gonna say something different. I just find that you have to read the wording quite carefully in the source, and simply go with whichever number is more frequently used. I'm running into difficulty with that for the Operation Atlantic Statistics. Some of my sources say 1100 casualties, others say 1,349 casualties, so I'm trying to find a few more sources that say one or the other. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Aha, that was a big part of the problem, we should definitely separate "fatalities" from "wounded" in the statistics if we're able to find the separate numbers :) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 03:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've got approximations (it comes out to about 800 dead, anywhere from 1800-2000 wounded and/or captured), which I can add in once the GA Process is done. It will be almost impossible to find any real number for the Spring Casualties. I have yet to find a source where they didn't round it to 500 killed, 1,000 wounded or captured. As mentioned, I'm planning to add in a big section in Aftermath Discussing that after the GA is finished. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to clear it up for anyone else who looks at it, you may want to state "2600+ killed, wounded or captured". Just an observation.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. i'll do that right away. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 02:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?

Personally, I've been fortunate enough to be working with a GA reviewer with whom i've worked with previously. I find that if the article receives a "quick fail", then you really don't get a lot of feedback from the reviewer. However, if the GA is placed "On hold", then the editor is sort of required to give you a second opinion, so as to justify the "On Hold". as you can probably see if you scroll through the "on hold", Eyeserene & I have been conversing back and forth almost continuously, resolving issues & bandying ideas & questions back and forth. I find it all depends upon the reviewer. During the first GA Review this article went under, I would have loved more feedback. During this one, I think we sort of "overkilled" on feedback. If you get an editor who REALLY knows MoS, it's all good.Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?

Outside of Wikipedia, I do a lot of essay & letter writing (as in the highly opinionated letters you see appearing in your newspaper at the back of Section A). I've been published (as of March 5) 14 times (12 letters, 2 essays).Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

My writing style outside of Wikipedia isn't influenced by wikipedia. Within Wikipedia, I base my writing style off of that of the editors from the Military History Project. I find that we tend to come up with some damn good articles (speaking from a slightly biased viewpoint). When I have to write stuff for academics (school and such), I base me stuff off of the layout & style of the Military History Wikiproject Articles.Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-FAC copy-edit

Updating page numbers for footnotes

I haven't done this yet but here are links to the original articles, showing the original page references:

It should just be a matter of adding the existing page numbers to the actual magazine page numbers, ie Jarymowycz (1993), p. 4. becomes Jarymowycz (1993), p. 78 and Copp (1992), p. 3. becomes Copp (1992) p. 47 etc. --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for all of your help. I'll get to work on that stuff ASAP. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 18:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I've done then now (and Simonds). --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Referance

Number 26: BBC: People's War

Is this citation this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/99/a2805699.shtml

--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)