Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Juno Beach

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Climie.ca (talk | contribs) at 23:40, 12 June 2011 (fixed the remainder of Nick-D's comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Juno Beach

Nominator(s): Cam (Chat)(Prof)


After a lengthy hiatus to write about Japanese battleships, I have at long last returned my attention to Operation Overlord, beginning with the Canadian Sector of the Normandy Landing Zones. This marks the single largest (and most research-intensive) article I have ever written; it passed GA several weeks ago, and I believe that it meets the A-Class Criteria, and thus I respectfully submit it for ACR. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 20:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
    • there are no dab links, ext links work (no action required);
    • the images lack alt text. You might consider adding it in, but it is not a requirement (suggestion only);
    • "File:Canadian Soldiers Juno Beach Town.jpg" - if possible the description, permission and author information on the image description page should probably be translated into English (currently only in French);
    • otherwise images appear correctly licenced (no action required);
    • in the lead I think that there is a tense switch. For example: "Juno Beach is the code name" (present) and "the beach is situated" (present), then "The sector spanned" (past);
Fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • it might be possible to reduce the amount of whitespace between the lead and the Background section by placing a table of contents limit in the article, see Template:TOC limit (suggestion only);
    • I suggest wikilinking terms like "battalion" and "brigade" on first mention (and other military unit terminology) so that casual readers can learn more;
Done somewhat. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • be careful of overlink. I found a few terms, e.g. "Benard Montgomery" and "Erwin Rommel" were linked a few times in the body, there might be others (per recent FAC advice, its probably best to limit linking to just in the lead and once in the body);
      • Its not really a major issue for me, but I removed one myself. I think if you want to take this to FAC, you will need to cast a keen eye over it for overlink. This issue has been raised a few times in recent FACs. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • in The Invasion of Normandy section, I suggest adding a citation at the end of this sentence: "After delays of both logistical planning and weather, the D-Day of Overlord was scheduled for 6 June 1944. Eisenhower and Bernard Montgomery aimed to capture Caen within the first day, and liberate Paris by D+90" (as it appears uncited);
Done. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • in "Landing: 7th Brigade" section, I suggest adding a citation at the end of this sentence: "On the far right, C Company of the Canadian Scottish Regiment landed with little opposition, and discovered that their objective — a 75mm gun emplacement — had been destroyed by naval gunfire" (as it appears uncited);
Same citation as previous (Saunders p. 98), so I just moved the citation to the end of the paragraph to clarify. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the "Initial attacks" section, I'm not sure that this is correctly capitalised: "while the eastern Companies of the" and also "from the Winnipeg Companies" (shouldn't it just be "companies"?);
Fixed for the whole article. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • the spacing of emdashes is inconsistent (shouldn't be spaced per WP:DASH) and sometimes you use hyphens where emdashes are required;
I think someone else has fixed this. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was still inconsistent to me, so I've tweaked it. Please review my changes and revert if you feel necessary. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "as part of Operation Charnwood (8-9 July) and Operation Goodwood (18-20 July)" (the hyphens in the date ranges probably should be endashes);
Done. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "They found the strongpoint facing them uncleared" --> "They found that the strongpoint facing them had not been cleared"?
Done. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The aerial bombardment of Juno's defences the night before are considered to have " --> "The aerial bombardment of Juno's defences the night before is considered to have"?
Fixed. I'm not sure how sleep-deprived I must have been when I wrote that the first time. Cam (Chat)(Prof)
    • "Zuehlke (2004)" in the Citations is in a different format to the others which aren't presented with dates;
    • further to the above, in the Bibliography you provide "Zuehlke, Mark (2005)" - should this be 2004 or 2005?
Ah. Same problem. I originally had three Zuehlke books when I started out, so I used Zuehlke (2004) intending to use the other books. I never did end up doing so. Given that I have so many Zuehlke refs and will probably be adding 2001 ones in the near future, I'm keeping them for ease of editing (hope that's ok). Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You still need to include the full bibliographic details for Zuehlke 2004 in the Bibliography. Currently you only have the 2005 book. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the citations "Wilmost, p. 276" - should this be "Wilmot"?
Spelling typo. My bad. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • inconsistent style, compare: "Zuehlke, pp. 242-3" v "Copp, pp. 55-56" (one uses abbreviated range, the other full range numbers);
Generally if it's double-digit page #s I tried to spell it out in full, but only use abbreviated for triple-digits. I know that's inconsistent. I've gone through to see which ones I can find. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • some of the References have publisher locations and others don't. If possible they should all have them for consistency (its not a drama, though, if you can't find them all);
The ones I could find have them. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • the page ranges in the Citations probably should have endashes. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Provisional support: most of my comments have been addressed, however my review is not a full review. I support the suggestions/comments made by Fifelfoo and Nick-D, so I would like to see these addressed before the review is completed. As I will be heading out field next week, I might not be back (not sure) before the review is due to be closed. As such I offer provisional support for promotion to A-class, based on the proviso that Nick's and Fifelfoo's comments are satisfactorily addressed. Sorry for any inconvenience that my absence may cause. Keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources and Citations Generally of a high scholarly standard; want to hear the lead editor has exhaustively checked journal articles, other than that fixits. This may need a close paraphrase check due to the manner in which the citations run in sequence; I would suggest a second editor checking against Saunders (2004) which is a google book (not an accusation, of course). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. I actually used the copy located here, since I can't stand using online books (something about reading on the screen drives me to distraction). That being said it's a fair precaution to take on your part. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 05:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bibliography
      • Publisher locations: All or none (Compare Barris 2004 to Copp 2003)
All. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 23:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Way of displaying publisher locations (Compare Copp 2003 to D'Este 1983; Place: Publisher versus Publisher, Place)
      • Authors do not receive titles (CP Stacey). Stacey 1960/1966 is also authored by the corporate author "Canada. Dept. of National Defence."
Fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 23:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Periods versus commas after the date element (Compare "Wilmot, Chester (1952)." to "Zuehlke, Mark (2005),"
      • Zuehlke is generally comma'd up, your bibliography style uses periods
Fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 23:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Scholarly journal articles? I couldn't find any, but have you exhaustively searched?
        • I couldn't find anything of significant quality. What I did find did not stand up to the books I used (and in some cases largely relied on the same sources I did), so I've stuck to published books.
      • OCLCs pass
    • Citations
      • Zuehlke (2004) in citations, no Zueklke (2004) in bibliography
      • n-dashes "–" for page ranges ie "Granatstein, pp. 13-14" ==> "Granatstein, pp. 13–14"
  • Comment:
  1. The question on the talk page needs addressing Elements of the the 51st Highland Division landed on the beach in the afternoon: appears all mention of the division has been removed from the article Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one or two of the sources that I used even mention the presence of the 51st Highland Division, and none go into any great detail concerning the division's actions on the beach on D-Day (Van Der Vat simply mentions that they were part of the overall assault organization of Juno). From what I've managed to find on the 51st in general they did not actually land on Juno until 7 June, at which point it did begin to support the 3rd CID. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 01:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is a pretty good article, but I think that it needs more work to reach A class:

  • "while rough weather forced the first wave to be delayed by ten minutes — the first wave touched down at 07:35" - this is a bit repetitive
Fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With Churchill's "soft underbelly of Europe" proving too slow an advance to take significant pressure off the Eastern Front, Western Allied planners returned to the plans to invade Northern France, now postponed into 1944" - this isn't at all accurate; the Western Allies were committed to landing in France in 1944 before the invasion of Italy began. This wording implies that the western Allies intended the Italian Campaign to be a substitute for landing in France.
True. Fixed (I think). Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More generally, the background section seems inappropriate; there's no need to give a potted history of the events which lead to the start of the Normandy Campaign - as we've got an article for that. Rather, it should be focused on topics such as how Juno Beach was selected as a landing site and the planning process for the landing (was the Canadian 3rd Division responsible for planning this operation?). The command structure for the Allied landing force should also be explained.
I'm of the mindset that it's important to give some background into both. Someone coming to this article for the first time - and with no background whatsoever - isn't necessarily going to go to the grander article. I think I've given the information regarding the Normandy operations that is necessary to the uninformed reader. I think I've also dealt adequately with the 3rd CID stuff in both the background and "planning and preparation" sections. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bernard Montgomery is linked twice, and his position is explained on the second occasion
Delinked and switched to first time. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the relevance of the statement that the German Army included "superb armoured divisions"?
changed the wording slightly. I think it's worth noting that SS Panzer divisions were not your standard armoured divisions. I'm not sure how to remove reference altogether and maintain the flow. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How good was a "better-than-average static division"? My understanding is that the quality of these formations was generally quite low as they had men and equipment deemed unsuitable for the mobile units.
You're correct that they generally lacked the mechanized capacity present in German front-line divisions. I'm going to interpret "better than average" to mean that their infantry were generally of a higher quality than those of other static divisions, though that may be extrapolating from the source too much on my part. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rommel also deployed the 21st Panzer Division southeast of Caen to act as a counterattack against landings on what would be Sword and Juno" - this reads a bit awkwardly
Fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Air attacks on Normandy's coastal defences began in earnest on 5 June at 23:30, with RAF Bomber Command giving the order for bombers to target the chief coastal batteries" - this is a bit confusing - RAF Bomber Command's role in the landings was planned months in advance, so it's unclear what it gave an order to do
Clarified somewhat. They basically reverted from blanket-bombing tactics to specifically targeting coastal guns, and also did so with much more intensity than before. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 23:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A map of the beach showing the different sectors would be very useful
I'm looking for one. If I can find it, I will definitely add it (haven't found a free-use one thus far). Cam (Chat)(Prof) 23:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 8th Canadian Infantry Brigade's two assault regiments" - should 'regiments' be replaced with 'battalions' here?
Yep. It has been now. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who Terry Copp is isn't identified in the article's text
Fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 23:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's meant by "The beachhead was now overflowing with troops"?
Clarified. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 23:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hitler had freed up the veteran Panzer Lehr Division and the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend, both of which now prepared to head north to form the I SS Panzer Corps" - Hitler 'released' rather than 'freed up' these divisions, and I suspect that they were already units of the I SS Panzer Corps before the landing
Fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 23:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the Panzer divisions which faced the British and Canadians really be labeled 'elite'?
The three Panzer Divisions of the I SS Panzer Korps basically held back the entire British Second Army for six weeks despite overwhelming numerical and air superiority on the part of the Brits. In my mind that definitely makes them "elite". Cam (Chat)(Prof) 23:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is very Canadian-centric - can more be said about the experiences of the Germans who faced the Allied landing in the Juno sector?
I genuinely wish it could, but the simple reality is that there is virtually nothing written (in English) on those experiences. The only book I have that even touches on the German experience on D-Day (Army in the West) is a collection of communications between the division/corps and army level. To my knowledge, there is no reliable English source material on German soldier experiences on Juno Beach. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will definitely do so when I can get my hands on it. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Juno_Beach&oldid=433962727"