Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Moro River Campaign
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.
Moro River Campaign[edit]
- Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Cam (Chat)
| Toolbox |
|---|
This article has been in the works for quite some time, passing a very thorough GA-Review in December '08/January '09 courtesy of Bryce. I think that this article is ready for A-Class, and as such I submit it for ACR. Cam (Chat) 04:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You're certainly aware of WP:NPOV. This means you have to present the confrontation as an uninvolved observer, not an embedded journalist. The Germans had a sophisticated unit structure and were well aware of the art of keeping records. Thus, if you don't present them with as detailed information(that creates solidarity) you absolutely have to explain why. I know that it can be difficult and if you need translations of German sources I can help you. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the primary problem, in that a) I don't speak German and b) don't have access to German records. I've been doing quite a bit of digging to try and find stuff, but I really haven't had much luck. The sources I have go into some detail with regards to German forces, though obviously not as much as would be ideal. I'll take another look and see if there's anything I can add to it. As an afterthought, anything specific that needs fleshing out? Cam (Chat) 22:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - (this version)
Right in the lead—should "World War II" be "Second World War" for British English purposes?
Any explanation behind this? "Anon (1946). The Tiger Triumphs: The Story of Three Great Divisions in Italy. HMSO." HSMO is what? And, for my own personal curiosity, why is the person who wrote it anonymous? Lastly, help me, I'm confused as to which book is the right book. :-)
Can we have locations and possibly OCLC's for the books in your bibliography? Just use worldcat.org/isbn/##########, replacing the number symbols with the book's specific ISBN. Only Berton (2001) and Zuehlke (2001) are missing the locations.—Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 19:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks great, and all issues I found I was able to fix. – Joe N 00:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- General Alexander's exact rank should be made clear in the introduction; his article reports him to be a Field Marshall, but I get the feeling that rank wasn't attained until after the war. Please clarify this.
- I find it odd that there aren't even any estimates for the Nazi causalities. No guesses, no allied reports, nothing at all from the front?
- None that I can sufficiently add up to come up with an even semi-accurate casualty figure, though I will scour through Zuehlke again to see if he gives an approximation. There are - likely in Berlin - mountains of archives concerning the Italian campaign, but I don't have access to those, I'm dependent on the literature published. That said, I'll take another look. Cam (Chat) 03:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the Villa Regatta section, why is midnight denoted 2400? Should it not be 0:00?
- The last line about the gully being a Canadian award is not cited. Please cite it or remove it.
- Some general Comments:
- Using the day month year style, a comma between the month and year, as is used in a few places, is unnecessary. For most of the dates, the year is superfluous in this article, really. Other than reestablishing what the year is in each new section, I'd get rid of them all.
- In times of day, even in 24-hour time, a colon should be used to separate the hours from the minutes.
- There's inconsistency in hyphenating (or not) mid-morning in several places
- Counterattack is a valid English word; no real need to hyphenate it.
- Some more specific comments:
- In the long sentence beginning Beginning on 4 December … in the lead there are spaced em dashes used to set off a phrase; [[WP:DASH}} suggests using either spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes. (The balance of the article seems to use unspaced em dashes.) Also, why the inconsistency of using dashes for one parenthetical phrase, but parentheses for the other?
- The spaced slash in Volturno / Viktor Line looks bad. If it's a line from Volturno to Viktor, it needs an en dash; if it's an alternate name it should be in parentheses or, better yet, omitted.
- Some of the units use the definite article ("the") in front of them (…comprising the British 78th Infantry Division…), while others don't (In October, Eighth Army had crossed the…). It would be nice to have some consistency in that regard.
- I got lost in the phrase beginning which to the east of the Apennines… which describes the Winter Line. If the description is of what the Winter Line spanned (I think that's what it is) it might be better to phrase it like "spanning from [abc] on the west to [xyz] on the east" or something like that.
- In the first para of section "Offensive strategy…", are the "78th Division" and "78th Infantry Division" the same unit? If so, it might be better to introduce it with the full name first, then use a more shorthand version.
- In section "Villa Rogatti", sentence beginning After approximately an hour of fighting…: Did the Canadians occupy and then depart from Villa Rogatti, or did they continue to occupy it? If the latter, I'd suggest was instead of had been.
- MOS:NUM suggests using a slash rather than a dash to indicate the night between to days, like 7/8 December, rather than 7–8 December (which implies something that spanned both full days)
- In several places, reference is made to "A Company" of some units at the start of sentences. Because of the possibility for confusing the specific company ("A Company") with any old company ("a company"), it might be worth considering to recast sentences to avoid starting them with "A Company". Maybe something like "The Nth Brigade's A Company took the bridgehead…"
- Second para of "San Leonardo": you have back-to-back sentence with "however" in them
- Section "San Donato": I always recommend avoiding the ambiguous as, as in As attempts were made to cross the Moro…. I'd change to either While or Because depending on what is meant.
- Instead of starting off the section "New Zealand Division…" with a Meanwhile, I'd suggest a tiny bit of context: "While [task was happening], …". Think about if someone followed a link to this section of the article: what would help them figure out what was going on without having to go back and read the previous sections?)
- Is there any way to either expand the "New Zealand…" and "8th Indian…" (especially) sections? Or, failing that, to combine them?
- In "Initial attacks", the phrase forming German counter-attack units forced…, at first read, sounds as if the Canadian attack formed the counterattack units rather than was the cause of them. Maybe "newly formed…".
- Same section: In the 2nd and 3rd paras; The Gully is used five times. I know that's what the section is about, but maybe some rewording to avoid so many uses. (Also, does it really need the capital T each time? The same question applies to units with that begin with The.)
- Section: "Eight Army reorganises…": Can the sentence beginning By the end of 16 December… be split or reworded? I got lost in the consecutive subordinate clauses. Same goes for the sentence beginning Meanwhile, even before the German counter-attack had been repelled…
- Although most people know what HQ stands for, it might be better to spell it out.
- I'd split the long sentence beginning There followed a period of hostile patrolling …
- In the "References" section, there's no need to link to Terry Copp in each item; link the first and delink the other three. Also, the retrieval dates are in the ISO-style rather than the day-month-year style used throughout the body of the article.
- Overall a pretty good article. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Ok, I am happy now. Thanks for the swift response to the comments. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:08, 11 April 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.