Template:Did you know nominations/Broad front versus narrow front controversy in World War II

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Broad front versus narrow front controversy in World War II

(
)
General Dwight D. Eisenhower
General Dwight D. Eisenhower

Created by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article was recently promoted to GA. Overall article sourcing, neutrality, and plagiarism is assumed to have been covered during the GAN. The picture is acceptable, but most people know what Eisenhower looks like, so I'm not sure it adds much. My main concerns are about phrasing and interestingness.

Regarding phrasing, "polemics" is uncommon, anachronistic language that also mirrors the source a little uncomfortably closely, so I'd suggest a different word choice. The meaning of "broad front versus narrow front" also might be a bit unclear to or require a bit of inference from non-expert readers, so if you can think of a way to concisely explain it, that might be good (if not, it's alright enough).

Regarding interestingness, it's not bad (and my standards are stricter than most DYK reviewers), but I'd be curious to hear if you have any ALTs. You seemed to begin an ALT1 but didn't fill it out. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Originally I intended to use the quote, but it was too long.
  • I don't normally offer up ALTs because they deter reviewers.
  • I'm not sure Ike is that well known any more; you'd have to be a boomer or someone who reads 20th century history to remember him.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The original hook doesn't read right because a decision is not a controversy. Ike's decision was to stick to a broad front. The controversy was the debate before and after. Ruppenthal's quote expresses this more accurately: "Of all decisions made at the level of the Supreme Allied Commander in western Europe during World War II, perhaps none has excited more polemics than that which raised the 'one-thrust-broad front' controversy." Squeezing all this into a hook seems challenging, so let's try some controversial ALTs:

  • ALT1 ... that during an argument about his broad front, Ike (pictured) put his hand on Monty's knee? Source: "Pulling Eisenhower’s recent signals from his pocket, he exclaimed, 'They’re balls, sheer balls, rubbish!' Perhaps only Eisenhower would have the forbearance to sit in stony silence while a subordinate verbally assaulted him. When Montgomery at last paused for breath, Eisenhower put his hand on Montgomery’s knee and gently said, 'Steady, Monty! You can’t speak to me like that. I’m your boss.'".[2]
Field Marshal Sir Bernard Montgomery
Field Marshal Sir Bernard Montgomery

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  • These sound fine. (I'm inclined towards the second.) I've provided an online source for checking. Changed "orders" to "messages". Montgomery never disobeyed orders, but Eisenhower was reluctant to issue them. As the article points out, Montgomery was the senior officer even though Eisenhower was the boss. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
    Good. As a further tweak, I suggest "signals" rather than "messages". It is slightly shorter, follows the source and works a bit better as a hook, IMO – more likely to get the reader wondering what was going on.
@Sdkb: As the primary reviewer, you should please check these ALTs. I can't approve them myself as I'm too involved.
Andrew🐉(talk) 23:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Andrew Davidson, sorry, I'm not a fan of using first names like that; it doesn't seem encyclopedic. Your alts are also missing the very core context that we're talking about WW2. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
"Ike" is perfectly acceptable in this context IMHO. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Maury. Note also that both Ike and Monty are abbreviations of their last names, not their first names. Abbreviations seem appropriate for hooks, which are supposed to be "short, punchy, catchy". Andrew🐉(talk) 17:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. Since this nomination seems stalled, as my two cents, I think that ALT2 looks fine to me, especially if used as the first or last hook in the list, which is normally where "funny" hooks can be slipped in. While normally first name usage would be unusual, Eisenhower is very famously known as "Ike", so much so that works such as books / TV series / etc. use it. DYK is allowed to be a bit more "magazine"-y at times in the name of being eye-catching, so ALT2 seems fine to me. I would hesitantly recommend something like an ALT2b though that replaced "Signals" with "messages" as average readers will not know or care that these were telegrams, just that they were messages. I'd say ship it, but will let original reviewer weigh in if there are any deeper problems with the article other than just not liking that hook. SnowFire (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ALT2b ... that when arguing for a narrow front, Monty (pictured) called Ike's messages, "nothing but balls"?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Re "let original reviewer weigh in", I cannot endorse it as I still do not think it is appropriate, but I'm aware that my philosophy of DYK does not necessarily have wide consensus behind it, so if another reviewer wishes to check this off, I won't stand in the way. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Requesting a new reviewer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

    • Since nobody else took this... sure, approving ALT2b. I checked the hook against the "Eisenhower Versus Montgomery: The Continuing Debate" source via Google Books snippet, looks good. Only minor issue (not a complaint, just an FYI) - the QPQ was apparently an article that was approved by nominator, but later commentators noticed CN tags on the stated hook and original research tags? Checking the history, those tags weren't on the article in February 18 when the review happened and were added a week later by Buidhe, but insert usual reminder that DYK reviewing should check the overall article quality, too, ideally, and push back on questionable promotions. (Article quality seems solid for this particular case of the broad vs. narrow front article, so good job.) SnowFire (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
      The tags weren't there when I reviewed the article. Had they been, I would have removed them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    • (I will add as a note to the closer that I'd consider skipping the not-that-relevant image and using this as the last hook in the set, which is usually the "stick slightly silly hooks here" slot.) SnowFire (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Broad_front_versus_narrow_front_controversy_in_World_War_II&oldid=1022030450"