Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Falaise pocket

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Falaise pocket

[edit]

I've overhauled this article and believe it would be ready for a successful ACR. I'm looking forward to make any corrections/improvements during this review. --Eurocopter (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox
Inconsistent date formatting: dd month and month dd,
Inconsistent spelling: "armour" vs "defenses"
I think another good run through for grammar and spelling GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, your first two issues (in the second one, armour and defenses seem to be consistent). Regarding the grammar and spelling, checking is underway. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
British English (and Canadian Englsh) spelling is "defence". GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does George Patton get a guernsey in the info box but not Courtney Hodges?
  • Why doesn't Paul Hausser get one? (Because he is incorrectly said to have commanded the 2nd SS Panzer Division? Or is it because his rank is wrong?)
  • How could "Falaise.. capture would cut off virtually all of Field Marshal Walter Model's Army Group B" when Model did not assume command until 16 August? (I might have mentioned that Kluge topped himself.) (Also: could you switch the link to Generalfeldmarschall?)
  • Why do the 4th Canadian and Polish 1st Armoured Divisions appear first and are linked later?
  • Why are the 1st and 2nd SS Divisions referred to by their names but the 12th only by its number?
  • Wasn't Operation Bagration the "Soviet summer offensive against Army Group Centre"?
  • Why isn't the Seine linked?
  • Why does the Bradley quote at the end of the background sound so suspiciously anachronistic? Could you tell me what the author's source was?
  • If "two days later Paris was liberated and Operation Overlord finally ended" why doesn't the info box agree? Or, for that matter, the Operation Overlord article?

Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support! Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support
  • Ref 10 goes after punctuation.
  • "This gained immediate success." Maybe it "...was immediately successful." instead?
  • It doesn't flow particularly well where you mention Bagration, and then immediately mention the US advance.
  • Perhaps some of the images could be moved to the other side, for balance? Four on the right and one on the left, so the one of the gun could be moved so it's pointing at the text.
  • There are some places where the prose doesn't flow too well, it could benefit from a bit of copy-editing.
  • "while the Canadians were advancing south towards Trun extremely slow." Adverb, please?
None of these are two major so I'm still supporting it, but please resolve them before it's 100% ready. – Joe Nutter 19:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done, except for the copyediting, which is in progress. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • Rather than bury alternate names in a footnote, put them in the lead in bold type (per WP:LEAD).
    • It's not immediately clear in the lead which side the 21st Army Group belonged to. Something like the "British 21st Army Group" (or whatever groups comprised it). Also, in the same paragraph, should allied be capitalized?
    • The phrase … only a few SS fanatics still entertained hopes … comes across as rather POV. Perhaps it should be attributed in the text, like Historian [insert name] asserts that "only a few SS fanatics still entertained hopes …"
    • In the sentence beginning Kurt Meyer's 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend, supported by tanks …, should it be fighting to hold rather than fighting to held? In the next sentence, the phrase … the offensive was delayed in repeated times on 9 August, … is not clear to me.
    • In the sentence beginning Although a withdrawal was at last authorized by the Führer …, it's not completely clear if von Kluge was relieved of command or just experiencing relief because of the withdrawal order.
    • Is At approximately 12:00, the last SS remnants launched … referring to noon or midnight?
    • The retrieval date for ref 49 is in YYYY-MM-DD format, which is inconsistent with style in the remainder of the article.
    • Most of the works in the "References" section are missing the publishing location.
  • I think there's good coverage of the subject and it reads well. I don't foresee any problems supporting when the issues above are addressed. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments The footnotes are now consistent (I fixed them up). References are fine. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I believe this meets the A-class criteria. Good work. I would suggest, however, that the mid-sentence inline citations be combined at the end of the sentences and that the External Links be formatted using the {{Cite web}} formatting template. Cla68 (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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/Falaise_pocket&oldid=1138360725"