Talk:Operation Lüttich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Operation Lüttich has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 6, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
September 22, 2008 WikiProject A-class review Approved
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Military history (Rated A-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. A-Class
A-Class article A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject United Kingdom (Rated A-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
A-Class article A  This article has been rated as A-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • In the last paragraph of the "Background" section, you say "could find barely a fraction of these numbers". What's "barely a fraction"? Do you have any specific numbers, or even a ballpark figure?
    I don't have the book where that ref was taken from, but I can check the rest of my sources to see whether I can find an approximation. Cam (Chat) 22:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • The last half sentence of the first paragraph of the "Offensive strategy" section needs a ref.
    Fixed. Cam (Chat) 22:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • The last sentence of the second paragraph of the "Allied Air-Strikes—the offensive stalls" section needs a ref.
    Fixed. Cam (Chat) 22:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • The lead image PD template appears to be broken (it is redlinked). This should probably be fixed, so there aren't questions about the copyright. I noticed you're the uploader, so thought you'd probably be able to fix it fairly easily :)
  • Fixed. I know for a fact that is a US Image, but I'm more familiar with Anglo-Canadian copyright templates (as I tend to use them a lot more) Cam (Chat) 22:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • The map image needs a caption. I realize there's one on the image itself, but it's fuzzy and hard to read unless you expand the image.
    Fixed. Cam (Chat) 22:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  1. Overall:

Overall, a nice article. There are just a few minor issues, so I am putting the article on hold to allow time for these to be dealt with. If you have any questions, you can ask them here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. The question in the prose section, about the Background section, isn't enough to keep the article from passing GA, but it would be something nice to include in the article, so that can go on your list of things to do in the future :) Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Air Power[edit]

I think that the article makes too much of Allied air attacks on German units involved in the operation. I suggest that there are grounds for scepticism, much of which can be found in the ORS2 reports contained in 'Montgomery's Scientists: Operational Research in Northwest Europe: Operational Research in Northwest Europe - The Work of No. 2 Operational Research Section with 21 Amy Group June 1944 to July 1945 by Terry Copp. Any thoughts?Keith-264 (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, this article needs some serious revision. Lots of good references state that the actual number of tanks destroyed by air power was a very small number, and that Allied tactical air power's greatest effect was on the German support troops and non-armored vehicles and supply train. Will add brief comment to correct, finish fixing later. DarthRad (talk)
OK updated the article with a reference from the terrific book "Air Power at the Battlefront: Allied Close Air Support in Europe 1943-45." DarthRad (talk)

In Popular Culture[edit] < This flash game is fairly popular and takes place during Operation Luttich. (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)