Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/British Commandos

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MBK004 (talk | contribs) at 12:52, 8 August 2010 (Close review). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

British Commandos

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jim Sweeney (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review, it has been through a peer review and has just been passed as a Good Article. I believe it may meet the A class standard. Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note on the link checker tool it keeps showing a link to the London Gazette as dead. I believe there must be a fault as its Gazette issue 37134 which is ref number 75. When you click on the link it goes to the correct page and article. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Coming along quite nicely, Jim, I have the following comments:
    • no dabs, all images have alt text, ext links work (as Jim mentions above, the tool had a problem with one, but a manual check confirms it is working fine);
    • images appear to be appropriately licenced (no action required);
    • in the Formation section you have linked "Lieutenant Colonel" and "Lieutenant-Colonel" (note the slight difference). This is three issues, (1) overlink; (2) inconsistency in terminology and (3) incorrect capitalisation in the second mention, where it should be lowercase per WP:MILMOS#Capitalization;
    • in the Commando units section, in this clause the capitalisation of "Commanding officer" is incorrect: "For transport the commando had one car for the Commanding officer..." (it should be all lower case as it is not a proper noun in this case);
    • in the Commando units section, I think "Hundredweight" should be "hundredweight";
    • in the Commando units section, I think "Heavy Weapons Troop" should be "heavy weapons troop";
    • in the Commando units section, you have this: "In February 1942 the Royal Marines were asked to organise Commando units of their own and 6,000 men volunteered". I thought that the RM Commandos weren't all volunteers. I seem to remember reading this somewhere, or am I mistaken in this?
    • in the Commando brigades section you have "Dutch troop", but then later "Dutch Troop" (e.g. in the Legacy section). I think in this case it should be capitalised as Dutch Troop as I think it is a proper noun;
    • in the Training section you have linked Belgium, France, Netherland, Norway and Poland, but these terms should probably be linked on first mention earlier in the article, (e.g. in the Organisation/Commando units section);
    • in the Norway subsection of Operations, you have wikilinked "Royal Navy" however this has been linked earlier;
    • in the Mediterranean subsection of Operations, you have this: "It was during Operation Roast that Major Anders Lassen, previously of No.62 Commando, now attached to the Special Air Service, was awarded a posthumous Victoria Cross." I think this should be reworded to something like this: "It was for his actions during Operation Roast that Major Anders Lassen..." (one presumes that the award of the VC took some time, hence it probably wasn't made while the operation was still underway, which is what the current wording implies). I also think that the use of the word "now" is problematic here as it creates a tense issue;
    • in the Mediterranean subsection you have wikilinked "other ranks", however, this has already been linked previously;
    • in the France subsection you have wikilinked "Victoria Cross", but this should be wikilinked earlier when it is first mentioned in the Mediterranean section;
    • in the Operations section, I'm wondering if a section shouldn't be added discussing the operations undertaken after D-Day, e.g. the advance over the Rhine, etc;
      • I was trying to avoid redoing the main article British Commando operations during the Second World War in fact there were only two major operations in Europe commandos were involved with. The battle of the Scheldt and the Rhine crossing. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:29, 22 July
        • I can understand that, Jim. This is meant to be a summary article, so you don't need to go into too much detail. I'd like to suggest adding just a small section on these operations, though, because as it stands the casual reader might think that the Commandos didn't go beyond France. I believe that they were largely just used like infantry battalions in this phase and participated in the general operation/advance rather than "raiding, etc.", so perhaps just a three or four sentence paragraph detailing this and linking the two major ops that they took part in? AustralianRupert (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the Burma subsection I think it best if "Lt G Knowland" was spelled out in full as "Lieutenant George Knowland";
    • Citations # 6 and 48 "Moreman, p.13" should be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS;
    • Citations # 22 and 63 "Chappell, p.15" should be consolidated per above;
    • Citations # 23 and 64 "Saunders, p.52" should be consolidated per above;
    • Citations # 34 and 62 "van der Bijl, p.23" should be consolidated per above;
    • Citations # 35 and 78 "van der Bijl, p.19" should be consolidated per above;
    • Citations # 66 and 67 "Saunders, p. 55" should be consolidated per above;
    • Citations # 71 and 72 "Saunders, p. 61" should be consolidated per above;
    • Also, I made a few tweaks to the article, please check that you are happy with them. AustralianRupert (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks once again for the tweaks and the review. See answer to Rhine crossing--Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done sections on the Scheld and Germany added --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support
Overall, this article is quite good and I intend to support its promotion, but I have a couple of minor concerns first:

  • I have made some edits (please confirm you are happy, and or revert/tweak any that have misinterpreted your intent);
No happy with changes.
  • There are some very long paragraphs that need to be split, and there are some very short ones that probably should be merged;
Tweaked a few
  • I think you overuse terms like 'their' and 'they' through out the article;
After pointed out see what you mean -I have gone back and reworded sections.
Request made for copy edit at the Guild.
Top work so far. I'm still a little confused as to what is meant by this sentence though: "From 1944 there were two other Commando units that were part of the Army Holding Commando Wing and the Royal Marine Holding Commando Wing. Both were under the command of the Operational Holding Commando Headquarters." Were two units added to the Army Holding Commando Wing and the Royal Marine Holding Commando Wing, or were they the two units you are referring to? Anotherclown (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)  Done[reply]
Reworded From 1944 the Operational Holding Commando Headquarters was formed. It was responsible for the Army Holding Commando Wing and the Royal Marine Holding Commando Wing. Both holding Commando wings had an establishment of five troops and a heavy weapons troop of fully trained commandos. The men in these troops were to provide individual or complete troop replacements for the Commando units in the field. - Does that make more sense ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thats good, thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also could the following paragraph be expanded a little (even two more sentences would be enough IMO)? "In November 1942, No. 1 and No. 6 Commandos formed part of the spearhead for Allied landings in Algeria as part of Operation Torch.[68] The Tunisia Campaign followed the Torch landings. No. 1 and No. 6 Commandos were involved in first battle of Sedjenane between February and March 1943.[69]" Anotherclown (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)  Done[reply]
Expanded section --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All my comments have been addressed so I'm happy to support. Anotherclown (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments: This is a good looking article with plenty of detail: content wise its ready for A class in my opinion, but I'm not so sure about the presentation of that content at the moment. While I appreciate that the article has recently had a copy edit, I'm afraid I think it needs a much more thorough going over. There are several grammar, prose and tense problems throughout the article. I've included a smattering of example, but this isn't exhaustive (if it was I'd just fix them myself);

  • "In November 1940 the new army units were organised into a Special Service Brigade under Brigadier J. C. Haydon, with four Special Service Battalions. By the autumn of 1940 more than 2,000 men had volunteered for commando training, and the Special Service Brigade now consisted of 12 units which were called Commandos. Each Commando would number around 450 men, commanded by a lieutenant colonel. The Commando unit was divided into troops of 75 men and further divided into 15 man sections. The men were all volunteers seconded from other British Army regiments, but retained their own regimental cap badges and remained on the regimental roll for pay." This is too complicated and could be summarised in a much more concise way, eg. "In November 1940 the new army units were organised into a Special Service Brigade consisting of four battalions under the command of Brigadier J. C. Haydon. By the autumn of 1940 more than 2,000 men had volunteered for commando training and the Special Service Brigade expanded to 12 units known as Commandos. Each Commando was led by lieutenant colonel and numbered around 450 men (divided into 75 man troops that were further divided into 15 man sections). The men retained their own regimental cap badges and remained on the regimental roll for pay." (The info about volunteers is already mentioned in the first line of the paragraph).
Changed to suggestion
  • Tense varies: the above paragraph uses both past and present, in the second para of the organisation section it is future (ie. each unit would now consist of).
Done
  • Awkward or stilted prose - eg.
    • "The Commando volunteers started training on the day they arrived by having to complete an 8-mile (13 km) forced march in full kit"
Done
    • "The Commandos initially were indistinguishable from the rest of the British Army"
Done
    • "The third Commando raid, conducted in Norway, was Operation Claymore in March 1941, by No. 3 and No. 4 Commandos"
Done
    • "...took part in Operation Basalt, which resulted in the death of four Germans and one captured."
Done
    • "The Thompson submachine gun was their submachine gun of choice, and, like the Bren gun, the Commando section was issued more weapons than a normal infantry section." (Sorry, but I had to laugh when I read that last one!)
Yes it should have read more submachine guns
  • Short sentences that should be reworded into other bits - eg.
    • "Living conditions were primitive"
    • "On arrival they were met by Vaughan"
Done
    • "The 1st Commando Brigade had returned to England after Normandy to rest and regroup. They soon returned to mainland Europe to conduct operations."
Changed text
    • "The United States Army Rangers can also trace their origins to the British Commandos. The Rangers were formed on 7 June 1942. Their first volunteers were from troops stationed in Northern Ireland. "
Changed text
  • Commas before "and" - have spotted a few where they shouldn't be.
Think I have got all of them

I'd recommend getting someone with no connection to the subject to go through the article and reword it thoroughly. Getting it out of the way in one heavy blitz, rather than piecemeal, will probably assist its long term FA hopes.

Some other points:

  • The first sentence doesn't say what the commandos are and is quite convoluted. How about "The Commandoes were a British Army special ops unit/formation formed in 1940 following an order..." or something like that?
Done
  • The whole Commando Brigades section seems to be a history of the individuals brigades' actions. Wouldn't this info be better folded into the Operations section, and just keep the first few lines for the organisation section (ie. how the brigades evolved). There is a great deal of repeated information.
Deleted and incorporated in ops section where needed
  • "The No. 3 (X) Troop was possibly the most diverse unit in the British Army, as it consisted of enemy aliens." This is quite a bold statement and should either be very well sourced or reworded. Can it actually be true anyway? There were less enemy countries than allied, so units formed of English, Scottish, Welsh, European and American troops would surely have a more diverse mix of men.
Changed wording
  • A lot of the image captions are complete sentences and need full stops.
Done
  • The battle honours in the infobox are very long and would probably be better included in a subsection of the legacy or operations in the main text.
This come about from the GA review but I have returned them to there own section Battle Honours

Like I said, the content is good, but I think the prose needs work. Ranger Steve (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the review I think I have coved all the points --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I’m truly sorry to say this Jim, but I don’t think you have. As I said above, these were a range of examples of the various problems I see throughout the article and I really think a very very thorough copy-edit is necessary to clear out all the others. There are numerous grammar and prose issues in every section, and I’m afraid on that basis alone I’m probably going to have to oppose unless one can be carried out in time. I would have a go myself if I had more time (sorry).

For example, in the points I raised above, The sentence “The third Commando raid, conducted in Norway, was Operation Claymore in March 1941, by No. 3 and No. 4 Commandos” now reads “The first Commando raid on Norway, was Operation Claymore in March 1941, by the men of No. 3 and No. 4 Commandos.” This isn’t really an improvement as the prose is stilted and there's no verb. A better wording would be “The first Commando raid in Norway, Operation Claymore, was conducted in March 1941 by men of No.s 3 and 4 Commando.” (note that the first two parts of this sentence can be swapped). The Vaughan sentence now reads “After arriving at the commando depot they were met by Lieutenant Colonel Vaughan. He stressed the difficulties of the course and said that any who failed would be 'Returned to Unit' (RTU).” This can be made much more fluid as a single sentence like “On arrival at the depot they were met by Vaughan, who stressed the physical demands of the course and that any man who failed to live up to them would be ‘returned to unit’ (RTU).”

Picking a fresh section at random, the Channel Islands section illustrates several of these issues. At present the first para says:

"There were seven commando raids in the Channel Islands. The first, in July 1940, was Operation Ambassador. With 100 men taking part, was also the largest; the rest were all much smaller raids. The next raid, in September 1942, was Operation Dryad, by 12 men of No. 62 Commando. This raid on the Le Casquets lighthouse was more successful. Seven prisoners were taken, and several codebooks were found and taken back to England for analysis. The second raid was followed a few days later by Operation Branford, which was a reconnaissance mission to locate a suitable gun position to support a future raid on Alderney. In October 1942, 12 men from No.s 12 and 62 Commandos took part in Operation Basalt, during which some Germans were killed and one prisoner was taken."

This needs work. There are several stunted sentences, way too many commas that break the flow of the prose and two different prepositions of place at work. Keeping much the same wording but redoing the grammar, a better alternative would be:

"There were seven commando missions carried out on the Channel Islands during the war. Operation Ambassador was the first and largest of these, employing 140 men from No. 3 Commando and No. 11 Independent Company in a night raid on 14 July, 1940. Later raids were much smaller; only 12 men of No. 62 Commando took part in Operation Dryad in September 1942, successfully taking seven prisoners and locating several German codebooks. Operation Branford, a reconnaissance mission that aimed to identify a suitable gun position to support future raids on Aldernay, followed only days later. In October of that year 12 men from No.s 12 and 62 Commando took part in Operation Basalt, a raid on Sark that saw four Germans killed and one taken prisoner."

In the second para, not enough information is forthcoming for the sentences to make sense without following a link. What cliffs? What islands? It should be “there were no signs” or “there was no sign”, not “there was no signs”. “Which resulted two deaths and one wounded” isn’t correct either.

Please don’t think I’m being picky; I’m really not, but I just see these sorts of grammatical and prose errors everywhere, and for A class they really need to be sorted out. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


No thanks for the review prose is never my strong point. the changes suggested above have been made and I will ask the copy editors guild to have another look. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. I have gone over the article again and made some more edits. A couple of points for Ranger Steve.
  • If there is a list of 2 items, there is no comma, but when listing three or more things, there can be a comma before the word "and". For example, "apples and oranges" is correct. "peaches, apples, and oranges" is correct. [1]
  • We are supposed to avoid using a word ending with "-ing" after a comma. The second phrase is confusing as it is difficult for the reader to tell what the subject of the verb is. See User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing. Your suggestion to say Operation Ambassador was the first and largest of these, employing 140 men from No. 3 Commando does not agree with Tony's advice.
If you feel the article still needs more copy edits you might approach User:SMasters who is a professional editor and co-member of the guild. And when I helped with Indiana class battleship a fellow named User:Dank did copy edits in conjunction with the A-class review that really took the article to the next level. I don't know him and have no notion if he would help; just a suggestion. --Diannaa (Talk) 02:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks once again for the copy edit.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


A couple of points:

  • Thanks for your comments Diannaa, but I’m not aware that I mentioned Oxford Commas anywhere in my comments above. Commas can of course be used at an editors discretion in lists before and, but that isn’t the same as overusing them in a general sentence (such as the example where I mention them above). As for “ings”, well I don’t pretend to be a copy-editor, I just wanted to offer Jim some suggestions to show good faith. However I’m not sure the grammar is the same as in Tony’s examples, (I thought ‘these’ was a pronoun in this example). I don’t think you can disagree that the sentence in question has been improved from its former state (I notice you haven’t adjusted it), and it’s such a common form that you’ve even done it yourself… (in the Netherlands section) ; ) I do happen to notice several more much worse examples in the article though (“with volunteers retaining their own regimental headdress and insignia”, “their sniping of the gun crews”, “The attack failed, with the unit suffering heavy casualties”).

*I’ve asked EyeSerene for some help in addition to Jim’s request at the guild. I really think if this article gets a good going over now, it’ll be FA quality.

  • In the France section I think a wee bit of expansion may be needed; although the objectives of Lord Lovat’s commandos are mentioned, it doesn’t state if they achieved them and jumps from D-Day to ten weeks later.
Ok bit more added
  • In the Norway section, is the comparison between a British infantry division and the entire German garrison of the country a necessary/valid one? If it was comparing two different occupational forces it would be relevant, but an occupying force and a structural infantry unit aren’t really the same thing (ie. the size of a British infantry division really has nothing to do with how many German’s were posted to Norway).
The total is given as a example the average layman/person will have no idea of how many men are in a division. If we just leave it as By 1944 the garrison had risen to 370,000 men'. its factual and accurate but giving the comparison of 18,347 men in a British division allows them to judge just how many men this is without saying 370,000 is about 17 divisions which would be OR. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]
I figured it was a layman comparison, but is there anything more relevant that could be used? I don't know if there are any figures for the occupations of other countries for instance? Or how about "by comparison the Allies only landed 130000 men on the first day of the Invasion of Normandy"? Just a thought. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, Ranger Steve. You are right that it is a very common construction and I expect it really only interrupts the flow when it becomes unclear what the verbs are doing. Hopefully more experienced editors will have time to help. Once we get to A-class and beyond, professional help is the ticket to success. I am merely an interested amateur. --Diannaa (Talk) 19:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to do a bit more work today, but on re-reading, I think the article easily makes A-Class now. Well done both of you Jim and Diannaa. I've commented above about the division thingy Jim, but regardless it won't affect my Support for the article. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/British_Commandos&oldid=377812108"