Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Totalize
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.
Operation Totalize[edit]
- Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having finished the full article promotion process for the second half of the campaigns around the Falaise Pocket, I have now turned my attention to the first half - namely this article. Approximately two or three months ago, it passed an incredibly thorough-GAN (courtesy of theed17), and has undergone gradual tweaking since. As such, I believe it meets the quality necessary for A-Class. Cam (Chat) 23:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Support YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments - several sentences at the end of paragraphs are with out a citation, and probably should have them. Also, it was my understanding (I may be wrong however) that per MoS, level headings should not start with "The". Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- done. Cam (Chat) 17:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A citation is still needed on the last sentence in the first paragraph of the "Offensive plan" section, another in the same location in the "Anglo-Canadian Assault" section and a third about Keller not receiving any further command positions (shouldn't this actually be field commands, or was he not given another command what so ever?). Also, I think the following needs to be reworded: "In any event Crerar had lost confidence in him because of his failure to capture the overall objective of Falaise[nb 2] and for his poor performance in Totalize[33] and he was to receive no further command positions." - It just doesn't sound right, particularly with the repetition of "and". Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- All fixed. Cam (Chat) 06:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of my issues have been addressed, so I am happy to support. My only further comment is to be careful on how many brackets you use; try not to be too excessive. Also, I hope you don't mind, but I made a few minor tweaks on my last run through with the article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed. Cam (Chat) 06:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- done. Cam (Chat) 17:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You have two disambig links that need to be located and if it all possible fixed. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In the Background section Two German SS Panzer divisions were shifted westward from Verrières Ridge to face this new threat do you know which two ?
I have also added a question to the talk page which will not efect my support etc but if you could have a look thanks Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- References comments (this version)
- Should "footnotes" and "citations" be capitalized?
- What makes http://montormel.evl.pl/?id=64 a reliable source?
- A publishing year for the book Battle for Caen
- What makes http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/ a good external link per WP:EL? What does it add to this article?
- What is up with the last external link? "?, Eric" ?
- Access dates and authors are not needed, I think, per Wikipedia:External links#External links section. I think that the authors look ok...but the access dates really need to go, IMHO.
- There is a {{dubious}} tag in the fourth para of the "Background" section.
- Fixed, I had the wrong division number down (116th, not 166th)
- 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.