Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Verrières Ridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Climie.ca (talk | contribs) at 21:52, 13 June 2008 (addressed another issue. I'm fully aware of when I haven't fixed an issue.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Battle of Verrières Ridge

{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle_of_Verri%C3%A8res_Ridge/}}{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle_of_Verri%C3%A8res_Ridge/}}

Toolbox

Self-Nomination If you're outside of Canada, you probably have very little recognition of this battle. In fact, many major D-Day Historians (Carlo D'Este, Dan Van-Der-Vat), go into very little detail concerning this conflict. That said, this article has been in the works since April of 2007. It passed its GA in April 2008, underwent a Peer-Review shortly after, passed its A-Class Review on May 24, & has undergone significant copyediting, both for MoS & for Prose. Having spent the last 14 months working on this article, I feel that it is finally sufficient for the title & rating of Featured Article. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Gary King (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • En dash for "[[July 19]], [[1944]] - [[July 25]], [[1944]]" in the infobox
  • "July 25-26, 1944" — en dash
  • "front.[18][3] Although" — refs in ascending order
  • "Historiography and Controversy" → "Historiography and controversy"
Hope that's sufficient

Gary King (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The Canada at War reference is lacking a publisher.
I'll see if I can find that. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly is "Juno Beach Centre" referencing? Is it the museum? The exhibits? I'm unclear on this.
The Juno Beach Centre is a Canadian-run museum in Courseulles-sur-Mer (Normandy) along the Normandy beaches. It has extensive exhibits pertaining to both Canada's involvement in the Battle of Normandy, as well as the drives through Belgium & Holland. I took a lot of notes from the exhibits when I was there in July 2007, then used some of that in citing some of the information within the article. Hope that clarifies. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Urf. Generally we want published information that's reasonably easily accessible. This one, I've never run into it, honestly. I'm inclined to think it's probably not a reliable source, as wikipedia defines it. I'm not saying that the museum isn't reliable, it's that we're relying on your notes (which are unpublished) from the site, do you see the difference? I'm willing to let others decide on this one though. Any suggestions? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know for a fact that the Juno Beach Centre has an excellent website with tons of information on all of their exhibits (I've used it for several other articles). If I am able to locate the URL of the site with this specific exhibit on it, would I be able to us that? Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or.....I can just remove the refs. Both of them were double-cited, I don't see lack of verifiability being a huge issue (considering I've double-cited & triple-cited everything that could be challenged) Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why double and triple citing instead of citing the most authoritative reliable source? Why not leave off the non-reliable sources, and source only the best sources? Double and triple citing to cover non-reliable sources isn't good sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly to the MLU refs (as mentioned below), most of the WWII.ca cites have been double-cited. One of them is cited alongside Pg. 222 of Bercuson. As for the other one, I can easily add in a ref from several of my other sources (I should have known that 109 refs weren't nearly enough). Hope that's sufficient. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and double ref. Can't hurt! (Is there an award for the most refs per kb of prose?) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Now, that came up in a previous review, when we (we being Eyeserene & I in June 2007) debated the suitability of the MLU source. We both noticed a substantial amount of bias within the page itself. You'll also notice that only casualty statistics are cited using that source. In addition, all usages of that source have been double or triple-cited with other references (Ref A is double-cited with Terry Copp 1999a, while Ref B is triple-cited with the BBC-site & pg. 223 of Bercuson). If you wish, I can easily remove the MLU cite, as I have already cited both those figures with other sources. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you remove the two iffy sites, and link them as external links, which gives folks more information, without having to use dodgy refs. Both sites seem to be non-commercial, or at least as non-commercial as museums get. But if others object to that idea... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out (except for the one above) with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

I've just expanded the lead a bit and done various other minor CE tweaks. Good article, describing the little-known battle itself and the ensuing recriminations. (Disclosure: I copy-edited this a couple of weeks back so I'm not entirely neutral.) --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I am Canadian and I do remember this...And so far I've seen nothing out of place yet. I'll post any comments if I find any faults. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Still looks as good as it did when I read it last. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Gives a full account of the battle and the controversy that surrounds it. Sourcing seems good, and it reads well. Disclosure: I've been working on and off with Cam on this article for a while, and I passed its GA review back in April. EyeSerenetalk 18:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments regarding images

  • Image:Verrieres-under-fire.jpg (the lead photo) seems low-quality for the lead photo in a featured article. Is there any possibility it can be replaced, or barring that, cleaned up? This is some distracting discoloration along the right-hand edge and, to a lesser degree, in the upper left corner.
EyeSerene has dealt with this one. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Geography of Verrieres-1.5.jpg - is this a scan, or was it made by the uploader from scratch? It appears to be a scan, based on the artifacts in the upper left and the fact that it is slightly misaligned. If a scan, the map needs a source and its copyright status specified. That aside, the misalignment needs to be fixed, and the image should be in PNG or SVG format per WP:IUP#Format and WP:PIFU. The white area surrounding the the map, and the caption "South of Caen" should also be cropped out per WP:PIFU#Replace captions in the image with text.
  • Image:Operation Spring.png is a beautiful user-created battle map - I notice EyeSerene is commenting here - would it be possible to have a version of this map without the caption in the upper left per WP:PIFU#Replace captions in the image with text? Not only does this satisfy the image guideline, but it will facilitate use of the map in other languages' Wikipedia articles about this battle.
I'll contact EyeSerene on this one. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted. I'll get this fixed asap (ie within the next 12 hours or so; can't do it from work!) EyeSerenetalk 11:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I hope the image issues are sorted. I further cropped the lead photograph to remove the blemishes mentioned, created a new version of the Caen & surroundings map, removed the caption from the Op Spring map, and just for good measure re-upped the last map to reduce file size. EyeSerenetalk 18:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly hi! 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notes: I left some inline queries and edit summaries about cleanup needs. Sample prose reveals repetitive phrasing:
  • The accepted toll for Operation Atlantic is put at 1,349 total casualties.[1] Of these approximately 300 were fatal.[2] However, the number of soldiers wounded and captured was significantly higher.[2] The casualty figures for Operation Spring are also commonly accepted to be within the vicinity of 500 killed and 1000 wounded or captured.[3][4] Of these, some 315 casualties out of 325 soldiers were taken by the Royal Highland Regiment of Canada, the heaviest Canadian casualty rates of the entire Normandy conflict.[5] If the casualty figures for Atlantic and Spring are taken to be correct, the total casualties for Canadian forces amount to approximately 2,800 casualties. Of these, 800 were fatal.[6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'll get to work on that (thanks for pointing it out). I also fixed the image issue in Historiography that you outlined in the edit summary. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was only a sample; has someone looked at all of the prose? Also, please update the FAC on resolution of the image issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "More recently" is any better, it has the same problems. Maybe reword the sentence some how? KnightLago (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does "since the end of World War II, the attack has become one of the most contentious & controversial events in Canadian Military History" sound any better? Cheers! Cam (Chat) 02:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at pulling this round a bit too. I've made the link between cause (first sentence of third lead par: questionable decisions, high casualty rates) and effect (second sentence of last lead par: debate and controversy) more explicit. This, I think, makes the logical connection between the two sentences stronger and sidesteps the issues raised by "more recently" and "over the years". Does this work for you? --ROGER DAVIES talk 02:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is somewhat better than what was there before. KnightLago (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

  • Somewhere in the beginning you need to put France with Caen, not everybody knows where it is.
You'd think that'd be obvious.....Oh well. Done. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a specific WL reference to France in the opening sentence to locate all the places mentioned.--ROGER DAVIES talk 04:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Royal Highland Regiment (Black Watch) of Canada, is this the actual name of the group? Maybe remove the Black Watch if it is not and just use their name in the lead and then if you want do Royal Highland Regiment (Black Watch) later in the article. After that you could then just refer to Black Watch.  Not done KnightLago (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I knew it wasn't done. That's why I didn't add my note saying I'd fixed it below it. Fortunately, I now have (it was only referred to as the RHROC once after the lead, and as the "Black Watch" the rest of the time). Cam (Chat) 21:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the D-Day landings, the Allies were stopped short of the city of Caen, a major Operation Overlord objective,[8] and positional warfare ensued until the first week of July." This sentence is kind of labored, maybe reword?
Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On July 11, I don't think day and month alone should be wiki linked.
Point of information, days/months should be wikilinked so that they display either as July 4 or 4 July according to user setting in preferences. --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added the year as well. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link to the MOS on this? I am just curious for my own reference. KnightLago (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Elements of the British Second Army reached the foot of Verrières ridge and secured part of the adjacent Bourguebus ridge but Verrières itself had yet to be taken, and this was assigned to the newly arrived II Canadian Corps.[11]" The "and this..." part needs to be split off or the sentence reworded. It seems to be hanging off the end of the sentence.
Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 51st (Highland) Division links to a disambiguation page.
Relinked. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All of the attacking forces were under the command of Lieutenant-General Guy Simonds, the overall commander of II Canadian Corps and of the offensives aimed at taking Verrières Ridge." Is offensives the best word here, maybe allied forces, or something else.
Yeah, since that's exactly what they were: Offensives. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and from "the factory" area south of St Martin" What is the factory area?
Clarified. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I don't think factory area should be in parenthesis. KnightLago (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "held the ridge with hundreds of guns" How many exactly? This is not very encyclopedic.
  • "270 divisions" in late 1943. Not explained.
Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You put Point 67 (on the northern edge of the ridge) at the second use of P67, why not the first.
  • "By that point," Which point exactly?
Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In order to exploit the foothold made on the ridge (both by the Calgary Highlanders and by the British during Operation Goodwood), General Simonds, commander of II Canadian Corps, rapidly prepared an offensive to take the eastern side of the Orne and the main slopes of Verrières Ridge,[6] scheduled to begin on July 20, 1944.[18]" The scheduled part again seems to just have been tacked onto the end of another sentence.
Fixed (I think). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "accurate German counterattacks" How were they accurate? Was this artillery fire, or an infantry attack?
Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The South Saskatchewan Regiment itself moved directly up the slopes of Verrières Ridge." Remove itself, then put this into context.
Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the attack ran into torrential rain, rendering the air and armoured support useless, and the infantry began to falter in the mud. Only the infantry faltered, or did the armored support falter as well? Armor and mud do not mix.
Clarified. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who are the South Sasks?
Oopsies. I have this habit of referring to Canadian Regiments in their short form after their first usage (Royal Canadian Regiment becomes RCR etc.) Clarified. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simultaneously in the American sector, General Omar Bradley, Commander of the US forces, was planning his own breakout—Operation Cobra.[27] Guy Simonds began planning his offensive, codenamed Operation Spring. Why is there a dash between breakout and Operation?
Because MoS guidelines suggest doing so. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Originally, Spring Why is Spring italicized?
Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original plan called for the attack to take place on July 23, but "inclement weather" postponed the operation for forty eight hours. Why is inclement weather is " "s? This is usually done when words are not being used in their usual sense. I don't see that here.
Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultra received reports of this, and sent them to Simonds's HQ. I know what Ultra is, but it needs to be explained when mentioned in the article.
Done. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were to attack at approximately 05:30 from their assembly area at St Martin. Where is St Martin, it needs to be linked is possible.
Unfortunately, there is no article concerning the St. Martin in Normandy. I've added a "distance from Caen" figure for a bit more specification there. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (in broad daylight, walking in a straight line) needs to be made into a sentence. This is not encyclopedic.
Done. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When they moved up the ridge at 09:30 (in broad daylight, walking in a straight line), they were easy targets for well entrenched German defenders, who were equipped with tanks, 88mm anti tank guns, Nebelwerfer rocket artillery, machine gun nests and dozens of mortar pits." Maybe break this into two sentences? There is a lot here.
  • On the reverse slope, they were subject to even heavier bombardment, as they ran into the counterattacking forces of the 272nd Infantry Division, as well as the 9th SS's Battle Group Sterz. I don't think there should be a comma after bombardment nor do I think the Battle group should be italicized.
Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All senior commanders of the Black Watch were killed, and two entire companies virtually annihilated. Don't you basically say the say the "and two..." part in the previous sentence?
Oh yeah...thanks for catching that. Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Black Watch had to be reformed after Verrières ridge—the casualty rates they had sustained were the highest in any Canadian infantry battalion for the remainder of the war. What is "ridge—the"?
MoS. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bretteville should be Bretteville-sur-Laize Canadian War Cemetery in its first use.
  • (Verrières Village) should be worked into the sentence.
Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the ridge in their attempt to keep Bradley's Americans boxed in." Bradley's Americans doesn't sound good. Bradley was an American. Maybe reword.
Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (each of which were subject to their own varying degrees of investigation and variation) should be worked into a sentence and not used in parenthesis.
Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The accepted toll for Operation Atlantic is put at 1,349 total casualties,[6] with approximately 300 fatalities.[13] However, the number of soldiers wounded and captured was significantly higher. This needs to be explained better as these appear to contradict themselves.
  • First use of POW needs to be the fill words and not an abbreviation.
  • German history does not place any particular significance on the battle of Verrières Ridge. Is there a source for this hugely broad statement?

I also think there are flow problems. Some of the wording seems strange to me. It may be English differences, though I tried to take that into account. To remedy this I suggest asking the WP:LoCE to go over the article. They do good work. KnightLago (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had five copyedits done on this thing over the last month & a half (one by Eyeserene, one by JbMurray, one by Blnguyen, two by Roger). I'll get to work on fixing this stuff immediately (You can cross it off as you think I've addressed it). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:FAC instructions, pls don't strike reviewer comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just realized that. Already fixed my error. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes: There are also unspaced emdashes mixed with spaced emdashes (see WP:DASH); it might be wise to ask User:Epbr123 to check the article for other MoS issues. Also, here's another sample of the rough going with the prose:

If the casualty figures for Atlantic and Spring are taken to be correct, the total casualties for Canadian forces amount to approximately 2,800 casualties, 800 of which were fatalities.
Just rewritten it for Cam! Skinny87 (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Repetitive: If the casualty ... total casualties ... amount to 2,800 casualties ... lots of redundant wording there to ("amount to", etc.)
Unclear, sounds ORish, don't know what it means: ... if ... taken to be correct

That's only a sample: I'm struggling with the prose, and I'm not a prose guru, but I'm often stumbling over sentences. Also, informal prose, is the ampersand intended here: German infantry & armoured counterattacks ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a request with the MilHist Logistics Department copyediting team, since they seem slightly faster at getting back on stuff than the LoCE (I didn't think an article could go through this many copyedits & still have this many issues. I stand corrected). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just gien the article a thorough copy-edit, which should clear up some problems, but I do have several comments for Cam.

  • Are brackets allowed in articles? They may be, but to me they break up the prose a bit.
  • 'During the two-day period, I SS Panzer Corps reinforced the ridge with an additional four battalions, 480 tanks, and 500 guns.' - I realize this is from an ULTRA decrypt, but is that number correct? 480 tanks and 500 guns? It seems far too much for a single division, even an SS one. Skinny87 (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that four divisions (three of them well equipped SS-Panzer Divisions) held the ridge. You are correct that one division can't call in that much firepower, but four elite divisions (12th SS, 1st SS, 9th SS, 272nd Grenadier) can. Cam (Chat) 20:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't do so nearly as much as a billion & a half commas or a run-on sentence. Cam (Chat) 20:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still problems with wordiness and repetitive phrasing, example:

  • Casualty figures for Canadian forces in the battle are subject to some scrutiny, given that each operation had differing casualty rates, each of which were subject to their own varying degrees of investigation and variation in turn.

each ... each ... varying ... variation ... "some" scrutiny? It takes too much effort to get through the wordiness in these phrases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is really the problem I was getting at with the flow comment. The sentence construction is labored and strange in some parts. I haven't looked at the article again since someone said they copy-edited it, but I hope they went through it with an eye on improving sentence structure, wordiness, flow, etc. KnightLago (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'The casualty figures for Canadian forces who participated in the battle are subject to scrutiny, primarily because each operation had differing casualty rates and were both subject to individual internal investigations which varied in intensity.' - How's that sound Sandy? Skinny87 (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, how about this - 'The casualty figures for the Canadian forces who participated in the battle are uncertain, primarily due to the fact that each operation had differing casualty rates, and the internal investigations that examined both varied in how detailed their examination of casualty figures was.' Does that sound better? Skinny87 (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I keep looking at this, wanting to promote, but I'm afraid this is one of those "needs new eyes" candidates:

The casualty figures for Canadian forces who participated in the battle are subject to scrutiny, primarily because each operation had differing casualty rates and were both subject to individual internal investigations which varied in intensity.

Besides the repetition, by the time I get to the end of the sentence, I have to stop and figure out if I can figure out what it's saying. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get the point; you're unhappy with the prose. EyeSerene & Roger are in the process of giving the whole article a severe copyedit. Hopefully that will improve the quality of the prose. Cam (Chat) 21:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Copp1999a was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Bercuson222 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Zuehlke168 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference O'Keefe was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Bercuson, p. 225.
  6. ^ Jarymowycz (1993), p. 81.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Verrières_Ridge&oldid=219168098"