Talk:Battle of Rethymno

Rethymno

Some confusion here about the spelling of Rethymno / Retimo. Historically, within Australian Historical military history, it appears as Retimo.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Rethymno. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-battles/retimo.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101021022019/http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-battles/retimo.htm to http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-battles/retimo.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Rethymno/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 21:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Golla's German Fallschirmtruppe 1936-41 (Rev ed)- Its Genesis and Employment in the First Campaigns of the Wehrmacht Might be useful for a German perspective

That looks interesting. It would help with Battle of Heraklion too, which is currently languishing at ACR. It is expensive though, and my local libraries were useless even before Covid. I shall consider the e version.

• Brown is only the author of the introduction. The Admiralty's Naval Staff is the actual author

Ah! Fixed.

• No DABs
• Images appropriately licensed. Suggest moving the air drop photo to the infobox

I will if you insist, but IMO that leaves the rest of the article looking a little bare, image wise.

I think that the infobox image is the most important one in the article. And surely you can find other photos from the AWM or the IWM photo collections?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hyphenate well armed police

Done.

• Link field gun

Done.

• Why the quote marks around the hill names only on first use?

That's the usage I was taught and am used to seeing. I could remove the initial quote marks?

Not a usage that I'm familiar with but it's fine--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• They Allies had all but?

Oops. Fixed.

• Short but sweet--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Sturm, all points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikilink

Hi Newm30. I note that you have linked 2nd Parachute Regiment to the 2nd Parachute Division (Germany), even though it was, as it says in the same sentence in the text part of the 7th Air Division. As soon as I try to promote it, someone is going to shout WP:EASTEREGG. I don't want to just revert, as you usually have a good reason for your edits; but I would like to know what it is in this case. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake. I have reverted myself and apologies for the error. Regards Newm30 (talk) 12:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

No worries. We all make mistakes and you make fewer than most. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Central operational group

Hi Constantine, the last addition seems to me to be an unnecessary level of detail. Why do you feel that it is useful? (If it is decided to keep it, there are plenty of English language RSs to cite it to.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild, I admit I hesitated, but came down in favour of adding it, as it gives some idea of its place in the overall operational scheme (a three-pronged attack in two waves), and should be there for completeness' sake. Feel free to replace the citation with an English analogue, I just had the Greek one open since I am looking over the Battle of Heraklion article. --Constantine ✍ 18:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Except it wasn't a three-pronged attack, it was four-pronged, with four separate regimental groups. The middle two may have been linked for organisational purposes, but I don't see that mentioning to a reader that two attacks, 50 km apart, in different waves, with no tactical coordination, had some connection, when it is not followed up on, is helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Most sources I've read contain this detail, which is usual when discussing military operations. But I agree it does not offer the reader much more info, and since you are the main article author, I defer to you; I will remove it. Constantine ✍ 20:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)